Re: SEM: common class concept from Jeremy Carroll on 2003-06-01 (www-webont-wg@w3.org from June 2003)

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2003 20:02:41 +0100
To: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
CC: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <3EDA4DD1.6000909@hplb.hpl.hp.com>

Jos De_Roo wrote:

> Something that is an owl:Class is apparently *not*
> an owl:Thing in OWL DL, whereas it *is* in OWL Full:
> 
>   ex:x rdf:type owl:Class.
> =>
>   ex:x rdf:type owl:Thing.

This entailment is explicitly not a DL entailment because of syntactic 
restrictions on entailments (i.e. the separated vocab).

Once again we see that a test case that really did show that owl:Class and 
rdfs:Class with different extension would be a bug.

Jeremy

Received on Sunday, 1 June 2003 15:03:13 UTC