- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 16:16:54 +0200
- To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Looking at Pat's msg http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webont-comments/2003Sep/0010.html I see that he is distinctly misleading, and wonder if we should add a test case (to contradict him). DanBri: >>Are all RDF classes OWL classes? Pat: >No. RDFS has a more general notion of class than OWL has. In >particular, rdfs:Class is not an OWL class. Within OWL Full the statement above is false. Hence we should have an OWL for OWL test - i.e. a trivially true document, that shows: rdfs:Class owl:equivalentClass owl:Class . That's what it says in S&AS section 5. We should perhaps spell that out with rdfs:Class rdf:type owl:Class . The rationale as I understand it, is that the semantic layering ended up worse than we expected, and within our proofs, we needed the two concepts owl:Class and rdfs:Class to be distinct - this does not say that it is needed to be like this, merely that that was the best we could do. I should dig out the response we sent to RDF Core last time round. Jeremy
Received on Thursday, 18 September 2003 10:42:56 UTC