- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 16:26:41 +0200
- To: jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com
- Cc: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org, bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com
OK with that.
(I suddenly also think that in OWL Full besides
owl:Class owl:equivalentClass rdfs:Class.
at least I don't know wether one can assert
owl:Class owl:differentFrom rdfs:Class.
ie different things with the same extension)
-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
"Jeremy Carroll"
<jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.co To: Jos De_Roo/AMDUS/MOR/Agfa-NV/BE/BAYER@AGFA, "Brian McBride <bwm"
m> cc: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Sent by: Subject: RE: Another Comment on Owl Ref {was: Re: Denotation of
w3c-rdfcore-wg-requ owl:Class)
est@w3.org
2003-04-28 10:39 AM
Can we ask WebOnt to add a pair of test cases justifying the difference?
I wonder whether a consensus comment might be something like:
[[
The RDF Core WG failed to persuade itself that there were, or were not,
good
reasons for the distinction between rdfs:Class and owl:Class.
Can two test cases be added to the OWL Test Cases such that:
- the first uses owl:Class
- the second uses rdfs:Class
and they demonstrate the difference between the two concepts?
We note that while, for instance, owl:DatatypeProperty, bears no
relationship to owl:Class in the direct semantics, or in OWL DL, that the
only way of exploring this difference is through a triple such as:
owl:DatatypeProperty rdf:type owl:Class .
which, like the triple,
owl:DatatypeProperty rdf:type rdfs:Class .
is only syntactically permitted in OWL Full, where the two triples are
equivalent.
]]
Some might want a "If this is not possible ..." clause at the end.
Jeremy
Received on Monday, 28 April 2003 10:27:01 UTC