- From: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 17:57:50 -0500
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
>I wrote: >>Any attempt to make such a comparison outside the formal framework is >>mythology: > >on reflection I should tone that down ... > >Our agreed consensus is within the formal framework - any understanding >outside that framework is not part of our consensus, and cannot form part of >a consensus response to the comment. We need to recognize (particularly as this is in response to a question from the RDF WG concerning part of the RDFS vocabulary) that the OWL consensus, if there is such a thing, differs radically from the RDFS consensus. That alone seems to me to be sufficient reason to not make a syntactic identification of owl:Class and rdfs:Class, and still less of owl:Thing with rdfs:Resource, since it is obvious from the OWL and RDF specs themselves that in all RDFS interpretations there are entities in rdfs:Resource which are not in owl:Thing (literal values, for one). Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32501 (850)291 0667 cell phayes@ihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Friday, 13 June 2003 18:57:51 UTC