- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 14:04:01 +0200
- To: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org, www-webont-wg-request@w3.org
I could see it better when a DL reasoner *finds* the
given classes and things separated that it could do
decidable reasoning. There is no point in trying to
have an absolute owl:Class and owl:Thing as someone
could come along and declare a class as instance and
as such destroy that absolute separation.
I think DL is question of implementation.
--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Jos
De_Roo/AMDUS/MOR/Agfa-NV/BE/ To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
BAYER@AGFA cc:
Sent by: Subject: SEM: common class concept
www-webont-wg-request@w3.org
2003-05-31 02:49 AM
Something that is an owl:Class is apparently *not*
an owl:Thing in OWL DL, whereas it *is* in OWL Full:
ex:x rdf:type owl:Class.
=>
ex:x rdf:type owl:Thing.
I'm not seeing it anymore when trying to interoperate
with DL unless there's a clear common class concept
(rtf:type).
--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Saturday, 31 May 2003 08:04:10 UTC