- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 13:44:06 -0700
- To: nmg@ecs.soton.ac.uk
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
>Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu> writes: > >> 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 think that we might have a related issue with the relation between >rdfs:Resource and owl:Thing. Is rdfs:Resource a subclass of owl:Thing >or vice versa, or are they the same? I would suggest that owl:Thing rdfs:SubClassOf rdfs:Resource. In general, OWL can place more restrictions on its universe than RDFS can, so RDFS interpretations might well contain things that are OWL-impossible. There is a general, rather deep, issue lurking here: different ontologies will be based on different notions of 'thing', so we will probably eventually need to reconsider the rather simplistic assumption underlying both DAML and OWL that there is a single monolithic universe which can be associated with the entire language. The inferential problem is that in my ontology (of People in the Arts, say), an existential claim might be false which is true in your ontology (of People Known to the FBI, say); and still, I have written my ontology with my notion of 'thing' in mind. If anyone uses facts from both ontologies, they can get unintended conclusions that aren't valid in either ontology in isolation. Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Monday, 19 August 2002 12:24:27 UTC