- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 22:21:58 +0200
- To: "Dan Connolly <connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: Guus Schreiber <schreiber@cs.vu.nl>, WebOnt WG <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
[...] > > 22. RDFCore Comments on OWL Reference > > ACTION: Frank van Harmelen to respond to one open element (rdfs:Class > > vs. owl:Class) > > WITHDRAWN; transferred to PatH > > ACTION PatH: draft rationale for rdfs:Class vs. owl:Class situation > (less controversial than last time) I was joining late and missed the disicussion; my bad What I was also trying to say at the end of the telecon (but had no chance due to sound prloblems) was that I am stuck at the following: When D is a consistent OWL Lite/DL document then it is not necessarily a consistent OWL Full document for example the document owl:Thing owl:oneOf _:x. _:x rdf:first eg:a. _:x rdf:rest _:y. _:y rdf:first eg:b. _:y rdf:rest rdf:nil. seems to be DL consistent but Full inconsistent. We try to make our assumptions explicit in a "global" sense (using URI's, triples, implications and some such) and I can't see those for owl:Class and owl:Thing (seems to me that everybody could mean it's own local thing) -- Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Thursday, 10 July 2003 16:22:09 UTC