W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > August 2002

Re: WOWG: agenda Aug 15 telecon

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 13:44:06 -0700
Message-Id: <p05111b09b981c16e77f6@[]>
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 

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.


IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
Received on Monday, 19 August 2002 12:24:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:04:33 UTC