RE: DTTF: summary (gasp!)

• From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
• Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 08:28:20 -0400
• To: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com
• Cc: jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com, jonathan@openhealth.org, www-webont-wg@w3.org
• Message-Id: <20020524082820K.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>

From: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Subject: RE: DTTF: summary (gasp!)
Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 14:00:48 +0200

> 
> [...]
> 
> > In particular the following implication that is valid under RDFS will
> > not hold under OWL.
> >
> > eg:prop rdfs:subClassOf owl:Restriction .
> > _:x rdf:type eg:prop .
> >
> > entails
> >
> > _:x rdf:type owl:Restriction .
> 
> let's decide on this one
> for me this entailment is OK under OWL (as well as under RDFS)
> 
> --
> Jos
> 

Making owl restrictions be elements of the domain of discourse is one of
the most, if not the most, dangerous things to do.

That said, it would be possible to have the above entailment go through
(maybe) even if owl restrictions are not elements of the domain of
discourse.  But if owl restrictions are not elements of the domain of
discourse, why bother with things like this?

peter

Received on Friday, 24 May 2002 08:29:55 UTC