- From: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
- Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 11:53:15 +0100
- To: <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
- Cc: "Holger Knublauch" <holger@SMI.Stanford.EDU>
Follow-up of a debate in Protégé list. Holger Knublauch wrote: "... in Protege there is no way to distinguish between :A rdfs:subClassOf :B :B rdfs:subClassOf :A and :A owl:equivalentClass :B because they are internally mapped into mutual superclasses..." The reciprocal rdfs:subClassOf declares a logical equivalence of definition (intensional), whereas owl:equivalentClass declares an equivalence at instance level (extensional). Should those declarations be kept distinct or not by a conformant OWL tool? And if yes, what would be the logical relationship, if any, between the former and the latter? Bernard Vatant Senior Consultant Knowledge Engineering Mondeca - www.mondeca.com bernard.vatant@mondeca.com
Received on Monday, 12 January 2004 05:55:46 UTC