raised in comment: owl:class still needed? Does this effect Test LC?

One part of one of our public comments from RDF Core asks:

RDFCore: Comments on OWL Reference
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webont-comments/2003May/0004.html

   #owlref-rdfcore-owl-class-denotation
   It has been suggested to
   RDFCore that owl:Class is not needed.  RDFCore requests the
   creation of test cases to clearly illustrate the differences
   between owl:Class and rdfs:Class.

I'd like to see such a test (or tests) in our LC Test document, as it 
is likely that we will get this same or similar comment again.  If 
such a test cannot be generated, then I believe we need to reopen 
issue 5.20 as it was determined at the Bristol f2f:

  re 5.20 Should OWL provide synonyms for RDF and RDFS objects? no, 
owl should not have synonyms; owl:Class is not a synonym.

(this is part of a long thread and the resolution included this and 
other statements, but I believe the above is where the WG officially 
agreed owl:class was not a synonym)

and appropriately change our documents.

Peter/Ian (or anyone else) - can one of you remind the WG the 
difference and design a test case for it?


-- 
Professor James Hendler				  hendler@cs.umd.edu
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	  240-731-3822 (Cell)
http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler

Received on Wednesday, 14 May 2003 11:19:45 UTC