- From: Guus Schreiber <schreiber@cs.vu.nl>
- Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:04:24 +0200
- To: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- CC: "Dan Connolly <connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, WebOnt WG <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
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WITHDRAWN; transferred to PatH 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. ]] Guus > > 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/ > > -- Free University Amsterdam, Computer Science De Boelelaan 1081a, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands Tel: +31 20 444 7739/7718 E-mail: schreiber@cs.vu.nl Home page: http://www.cs.vu.nl/~guus/
Received on Friday, 11 July 2003 06:04:25 UTC