- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 13:03:53 +0200
- To: pfps@research.bell-labs.com
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
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 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 They diverge in such a sense that in an OWL (Full) world OWL DL models are all inconsistent; leaving no choice... Is there any reason why owl:Class can't be a subclass of rdfs:Class? -- Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Monday, 26 May 2003 07:04:11 UTC