- From: Yuzhong Qu <yzqu@seu.edu.cn>
- Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 22:59:36 +0800
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
[...]
> > It seems that the another part of the abstract syntax is as follows:
> >
> > axiom ::= 'Class(' classID modality { annotation } { super } ')'
> > modality ::= 'complete' | 'partial'
> > super ::= classID | restriction
> >
> > Yes, it allows the range be either a class identifier or a property
> > restriction.
> >
> > How about the domain of an owl:equivalentClass statement (OWL Lite)?
> >
> > Just classID ? or
> >
> > classID plus restriction (as in 1/ above)?
>
> According to S&AS, just classID.
Thanks for your clarification.
> > BTW, Is the modality in OWL DL [2.3.2.1. OWL DL Class Axioms]
> >
> > same as the modality in OWL DL [2.3.1.1. OWL Lite Class Axioms]?
>
> Yes, is there any reason to think otherwise?
Without explicit statement, it may lead to other understanding, such as:
'partial' may mean 'disjointWith' as well as 'subClassOf'.
'complete' may mean 'unionOf' as well as 'equivalentTo', even other boolean combinations.
So I think some explicit statements about the modality in OWL DL [2.3.2.1. OWL DL Class Axioms]
should be added to clarify this issue.
BTW, why owl:Nothing is not designated to be part of OWL Lite?
[...]
> >
> > Yuzhong Qu
> >
>
> peter
>
Yuzhong Qu
Received on Monday, 31 March 2003 10:00:10 UTC