- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 02:49:04 +0200
- To: "pat hayes <phayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>, hendler@cs.umd.edu
>>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. My parser maybe failed, but I think that owl:Class a-proper-subset-of rdfs:Class is inconsistent with owl:Class owl:equivalentClass rdfs:Class There must be one class concept in OWL Full, so I believe the latter is needed. -- Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Thursday, 29 May 2003 20:49:31 UTC