Re: semantics document revised

• From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
• Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 21:57:41 -0400 (EDT)
• To: phayes@ai.uwf.edu
• Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
• Message-Id: <20020923.215741.36872172.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Subject: Re: semantics document revised
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 20:39:34 -0500

[...]

> I don't follow you. Of course, in general, they won't have a single 
> common interpretation.  RDF doesn't have a single common 
> interpretation, after all, so the interpretation of the RDFS 
> vocabulary is going to change across interpretations.  Maybe in some 
> of them there will be classes with more than 57 subclasses, in others 
> there won't. Some RDFS graphs can be satisfied in very small 
> interpretations.

Let me rephrase my concern then.

I am concerned that there is no Large OWL interpretation of the empty
graph.  Remember, such a Large OWL interpretation has to consistently
assign class extensions to things like the class of classes that have at
most 57 superclsses.

> Pat

peter

Received on Monday, 23 September 2002 21:57:50 UTC