LANG: owl:Thing subClassOf owl:Thing

Working through the abstract syntax it seems that virtually any OWL Lite or
OWL DL file needs to include the somewhat interesting triples

owl:Thing rdf:type owl:Class .
owl:Thing subClassOf owl:Thing .

Have I misunderstood? It might be a typo in the abstract syntax mappings.


suppose we want to say

<a> <p> <b> .

To get this triple,
we have to use the rule from the mappings:

      <annotation1> … <annotationn>
      (<pID1> <value1>) … (<pIDn> <valuen>))

which has a T(owl:Thing) in its production.

This must use the classID rule that includes

owl:Thing rdfs:subClassOf owl:Thing .

in its production.

I don't see the need for the

<classID> rdf:subClassOf owl:Thing .

triple in the second row of the table, ever.
Is this not implicit with the

<classID> rdf:type owl:Class .



Received on Wednesday, 18 December 2002 10:56:53 UTC