- From: Richard H. McCullough <rhm@cdepot.net>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 19:02:06 -0700
- To: "www-rdf-logic at W3C" <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
- Cc: "KR-language" <KR-language@YahooGroups.com>
To me, the primary motivation for introducing owl:Entity is to get rid of the confusion between Entity, Class and Property. Entities are the (primary) things that have Properties. Defining Properties without Entities is meaningless. Dick McCullough knowledge := man do identify od existent done; knowledge haspart proposition list; ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guus Schreiber" <schreiber@swi.psy.uva.nl> To: "Richard H. McCullough" <rhm@cdepot.net> Cc: <public-webont-comments@w3.org> Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 3:24 AM Subject: Re: Restriction, DeprecatedClass in OWL Language Reference 31 March 2003 > Richard H. McCullough wrote: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webont-comments/2003May/0090.html > > > From: "Richard H. McCullough" <rhm@cdepot.net> > > Subject: Re: Restriction, DeprecatedClass in OWL Language Reference > 31 March 2003 > > snip > > 4. It would be desirable to define an owl:Entity class, > > disjoint from rdf:Property, which would include as subClasses > > owl:AllDifferent > > rdfs:Container > > owl:DeprecatedClass > > owl:Enumeration > > owl:Intersection > > rdf:List > > owl:Ontology > > owl:Union > > 5. The above would produce the Class hierarchy > > owl:Thing > > owl:Entity > > rdf:Property > > rdf:Statement > > where Entity,Property,Statement are disjoint and exhaustive. > > This hierarchy is very meaningful, from both metaphysical > > and epistemological viewpoints. > > Entity is the class of primary things that exist. > > Property is the class of Entity properties plus meta properties > > (properties of things other than entities). > > Statement is the class of relations between things. > > The WG does not see the rationale for introducing owl:Entity at this > time. I would suggest the discussion of this issue at the > rdf-logic@w3.org discussion list. > > Thanks again for your comments. Please let us know, cc-ing > public-webont-comments@w3.org, whether this response is satisfactory. > > Guus Schreiber > > [1] http://www.daml.org/2002/06/webont/owl-ref-proposed >
Received on Wednesday, 25 June 2003 22:40:15 UTC