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

From: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Subject: Re: raised in comment: owl:class still needed? Does this effect Test LC?
Date: Sun, 25 May 2003 20:14:57 +0200

> 
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> > From: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
> > Subject: Re: raised in comment: owl:class still needed? Does this effect
> Test LC?
> > Date: Sun, 25 May 2003 01:27:51 +0200
> >
> > >
> > > Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> > > > From: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
> > > > Subject: Re: raised in comment: owl:class still needed? Does this
> effect
> > > Test LC?
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > > Date: Sat, 24 May 2003 23:09:49 +0200
> > > > Well, in a certain sense none of owl:Class, owl:DatatypeProperty,
> > > > owl:ObjectProperty, and probably quite a few other bits of OWL
> vocabulary
> > > > are not *needed*.  However, it is *desirable* to have them around.
> > >
> > > Could there be a class that is an rdfs:Class but not an owl:Class?
> > > If so, is there an example of such a class?
> > > (not talking about illegal OWL Lite or OWL DL documents)
> >
> > rdfs:Class is one example
> 
> Expressing that fact in OWL Full is
> 
>   rdf:Class rdf:type _:x.
>   _:x owl:complementOf owl:Class.
> 
> but that is in plain contradiction with
> 
>   rdfs:Class rdf:type owl:Class.
> 
> which is derived per RDF MT rdfs3 from
> 
>   owl:equivalentClass rdfs:range owl:Class.
>   owl:Class owl:equivalentClass rdfs:Class.
> 
> 
> --
> Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/

Yes, agreed, but the OWL Full semantics and the OWL DL semantics diverge
here.  

peter

Received on Monday, 26 May 2003 04:58:32 UTC