- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 23:58:29 +0200
- To: pfps@research.bell-labs.com
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org, www-webont-wg-request@w3.org
[...] > Attendance > > Jim Hendler, Sandro Hawke, Jean-Francois Baget, Dan Connolly, Frank van > Harmelen, Jeff Heflin, Jeremy Carroll, Evan Wallace, Mike Smith, Peter > F. Patel-Schneider, Herman ter Horst, Chris Welty, Sean Bechhofer, Tim > Finin, Mike Dean, Pat Hayes (joined late), maybe one or two unidentified Jos De Roo (joined later) > 17:28:23 <DanC> that would be more intuitive to me... > to say that owl:Class rdfs:subClassOf rdfs:Class intuitive and the 104 testcases that we use (for RDFS, OWL, LOG, etc) are not affected in their provability (ie 94 cases with proof found) > 17:31:28 <pfps> Peter PS - if owl:Class is not the same > as rdfs:Class - then in OWL Full it does > not follow that rdfs:Class belongs > to the owl:intersectionOf [rdfs:Class] I can't see why; haven't found a problem proving that ex:I owl:intersectionOf _:l. _:l rdf:first rdfs:Class. _:l rdf:rest rdf:nil. entails rdfs:Class a ex:I. (that is assuming such facts as owl:Class rdfs:subClassOf rdfs:Class. owl:Thing rdfs:subClassOf rdfs:Resource. owl:differentFrom rdfs:domain rdfs:Resource. owl:differentFrom rdfs:range rdfs:Resource. owl:intersectionOf rdfs:domain rdfs:Class. owl:intersectionOf rdfs:range rdf:List. ...) BUt I still prefer to just have rdfs:Class, rdf:Property, rdfs:Resource -- Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Thursday, 5 June 2003 17:58:41 UTC