- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 15:31:17 +0200
- To: Guus Schreiber <schreiber@cs.vu.nl>
- Cc: WebOnt WG <www-webont-wg@w3.org>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Guus Schreiber wrote: >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WITHDRAWN; transferred to PatH 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. >]] > As far as I can see in S&AS, IOT, the set of OWL individuals, is not defined anywhere, it is just constrained to be a subset of RI. So above is DL consistent, as well as eg:myClass owl:oneOf ... eg:myClass owl:equivalentClass owl:Thing. is DL consistent, but Full inconsistent. jos >>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/
Received on Friday, 11 July 2003 09:31:27 UTC