- From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 13:18:24 +0000
- To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
- Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
In message [1], Peter F. Patel-Schneider says: [[ As far as the logic underlying OWL is concerned they are exactly the same. :A rdfs:subClassOf :B :B rdfs:subClassOf :A entails :A owl:equivalentClass :B and :A owl:equivalentClass :B entails :A rdfs:subClassOf :B :B rdfs:subClassOf :A ]] I understood that Owl classes were defined extensionally, and would therefore expect that owl:equivalentClass was an extensional equivalence, and that RDF classes are defined intensionally. Does Owl strengthen the interpretation of rdfs:subClassOf? It seems that would be legitimate under the semantic extension regime set out in the semantics specification (True in RDF remains True in Owl), but I wonder about the wisdom (and potential for interoperability failure) if the interpretation of RDF core vocabulary can be modified by other specifications. #g -- [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-logic/2004Jan/0030.html ------------ Graham Klyne For email: http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact
Received on Monday, 12 January 2004 15:47:47 UTC