- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 15:01:41 +0200
- To: pfps@research.bell-labs.com
- Cc: "jjc" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "jonathan" <jonathan@openhealth.org>, "www-webont-wg" <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
> > [...] > > > > > 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. really!? can you please elaborate a bit on that? > But if owl restrictions are not elements of the domain of > discourse, why bother with things like this? > > peter -- Jos
Received on Friday, 24 May 2002 09:02:18 UTC