Re: WOWG: minutes Jul 10 telecon

Jos De_Roo wrote:
> [...]
>>>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WITHDRAWN; transferred to PatH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.

Is it DL consistent?

 From App E of Reference (Sean's rules of thumb for OWL DL):

Don't mess with the vocabulary

The built-in properties and classes should not be redefined. In general 
this means that things in the OWL, RDF or RDFS namespaces should not 
appear as subjects of triples.


> 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

Free University Amsterdam, Computer Science
De Boelelaan 1081a, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Tel: +31 20 444 7739/7718
Home page:

Received on Friday, 11 July 2003 06:04:25 UTC