RDF vs. OWL interpretations

Is the following class definition problematic -- it uses an individual --
but the intention is not to assert the existence of the individual. Would
this lead to the incorrect interpretation under RDF.

Since DanC raised this concern, he gets to be the test dummy :-)

class ex:foo (
        oneOf(
                individual  (
                            uniquelyIdentifyingProperty <#mbox>
(mailto:connolly@w3.org)
                            property <#noseColor> (<#green>)
                            )
                individual (
                            uniquelyIdentifyingProperty <#mbox>
(mailto:connolly@w3.org)
                            property <#member> (w3c:WOWG)
                )
        ...
        )
    )

this example can be modified appropriately.

the point being that asserting the existence of a class ought not assert the
actual existence of any individuals used to define a class. This could get
ominious if, for example, certain medical information were used to create
what is intended to be a hypothetical indiviual. the problem with the
current RDF/XML is that merely stating something is the same as asserting
it.

I have no doubt this issue _can_ be solved, the question is: how are we
_actually_ solving it?

Jonathan

Received on Sunday, 24 March 2002 15:03:17 UTC