Re: WOWG: minutes Jul 10 telecon

At 10:21 PM +0200 7/10/03, 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  WITHDRAWN; transferred to PatH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.
>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 et al -
  I'm a bit confused on the issue of full inconsistent, in part 
because I haven't been tracking the RDF Core semantics -- supposing I 
did the following in RDF

rdf:resource rdf:type eg:a.

or - suppose I said:

rdf:resource owl:equivalentTo owl:nothing.

these would surely cause problems as well, wouldn't they?  They seem 
to be syntactically legal RDF - does the semantics rule them out in 
some way?  If not, wouldn't our documents where we change owl:Thing 
(in Full) be he equivalent of changing rdf:resource since they are 
equivalent?  Guess what I'm really asking what "Full inconsistent" 
means in this sort of case...

Professor James Hendler
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	  *** 240-277-3388 (Cell)      *** NOTE CHANGED CELL NUMBER ***

Received on Friday, 11 July 2003 17:54:04 UTC