- From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 09:48:21 -0500
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>, "Jim Hendler" <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
- Cc: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Jim Hendler wrote: > > To the best of my recollection, the discussion of the precise > differences between daml:class and rdfs:class, which seems to carry > over into our current decision-making and issues, was discussed in > the DAML joint committee, and not really in this WG -- I've looked > through the archives and seen many references to owl:class being > different than rdfs:class, but I cannot find a message that precisely > describes the differences -- can someone either point the WG to such > a message (or import one from joint-committee WG archives) or write a > summary. From our own discussions, it is not clear to me what is > being offered as a reason not to simply drop owl:class and use > rdfs:class (or just make them equivalent if we resolve the open issue > to have everything be owl:) I think that this is a central question for the Semantics of OWL: Is owl:Class defined as according to the OWL model theory (or whatever semantic definition is chosen) different (at all) than rdfs:Class as defined according to the RDF model theory? If the answer to this question is YES, then we need owl:Class, if the answer to this question is NO, then we don't _need_ owl:Class. If this question cannot be answered (and I am fearing that it cannot in a straightforward and consistent fashion), then we ought to pack it up and go home until we can get a straight answer to this basic question. Jonathan
Received on Thursday, 15 August 2002 10:48:16 UTC