Re: Agenda for telecon -- May 29 2003

>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.

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.


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	   for spam

Received on Thursday, 29 May 2003 18:19:08 UTC