- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 17:19:04 -0500
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: "Jim Hendler <hendler" <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
>Jos De_Roo wrote: > >> >... >>but it would if owl:Class was replaced with rdfs:Class in the semantics. >>]] >> >>The entailment is perfectly OK in OWL Full >>so the trouble is that we have no test case >>to show what would break if we drop owl:Class >> > > >Moreover, if we did, it would be a bug in our design. Our design is >intended to prevent there being such a test case. > >The only part of our document where you can explore these issues is >the section entitled OWL DL in the rdfs compatible semantics. That >section does not relate to any of the conformance statements and is >hence essentially informative, since it has no impact on any >envisaged software. > >Jeremy There is something wrong here. Why would dropping this be a bug in the design? The design depends on there being a clear distinction between owl:Class in DL and rdfs:Class, so it seems odd that we cannot articulate that difference. Maybe Ive been out of the semantic loop for too long, but it seems to me that the difference should be articulable in OWL Full precisely by owl:Class meaning the same there as it does in OWL-DL, and it being a tautology that owl:Class is a proper subset of rdfs:Class. Any other design will guarantee that OWL DL and OWL Full are not interoperable, since the OWL vocabulary will have different meanings. 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@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes s.pam@ai.uwf.edu for spam
Received on Thursday, 29 May 2003 18:19:08 UTC