Re: owl:Ontology in abstract syntax

From: "Jeremy Carroll" <>
Subject: owl:Ontology in abstract syntax
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 18:06:26 +0100

> I want to check that I am right in thinking that the following two files are
> in OWL Lite:
> hmmm,
> they are not are they?
> They don't say that the classes are subclasses of owl:Thing and hence they
> cannot be the image of the mapping rules.

I'm going to remove the subClass triple that causes this problem, along
with a number of other subClass, domain, and range triples.  They are all
entailed by the OWL model theory anyway.


Received on Wednesday, 18 December 2002 10:39:16 UTC