- From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
- Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 11:56:56 -0500
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com
- Cc: seanb@cs.man.ac.uk, www-webont-wg@w3.org
At 6:41 -0500 2/17/03, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: >From: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com> >Subject: RE: the relationships between OWL species >Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 12:29:39 +0100 > >> > >> > I believe that it is the intent of the working group that all OWL DL >> > documents are OWL Full documents, which is what 2/ goes against. >> > >> >> I certainly intended to convey that ... can you give me a test case please? >> >> i.e. an OWL DL document that is not OWL Full by my wording. > >... > ><owl:Class rdf:ID="owl:xxx" /> > >.... > >is an OWL DL document, but not an OWL Full document. > >> I would regard that as an error. >> >> Jeremy > >peter This definitely sounds like a problem to me <owl:Class rdf:ID="owl:xxx" /> I think that either the above should not be in DL, or we should fix the rules w/respect to Full (allowing this in Full). My preference is to allow these things in DL and Full, but if we don't, we should be consistent -- I believe that either of these are with past WG decisions but that what Peter cited (all RDF documents are in Owl Full; all DL documents are also in Full) is preferred based on past WG decisions. -JH -- Professor James Hendler hendler@cs.umd.edu Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies 301-405-2696 Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab. 301-405-6707 (Fax) Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 240-731-3822 (Cell) http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler
Received on Monday, 17 February 2003 11:57:11 UTC