- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 13:56:53 +0300
- To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
[[ Hi Dan Thanks for your comment http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webont-comments/2003Sep/0009 We had an earlier similar comment from RDF Core WG, to which the official reply was: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webont-comments/2003Jul/0052 Assuming that you were familiar with this, we decided to further clarify the use of owl:Class and rdfs:Class by means of additional test cases. The first is in the published Candidate Rec and can be found at: http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/CR-owl-test-20030818/byFunction#imports-008 and this is targeted at OWL DL and OWL Lite users wanting to reuse RDFS schema. Further tests, targeted at the OWL Full user are found in the editors draft at: http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/proposedByFunction#Class-001 http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/proposedByFunction#Class-002 http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/proposedByFunction#Class-003 http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/proposedByFunction#Class-004 The first shows that owl:Class and rdfs:Class are equivalent as classes in OWL Full. The second and third spell this out, by showing that a type triple using owl:Class means exactly the same as a type triple using rdfs:Class. The fourth ones shows the remaining distinction between the two classes in OWL Full, that annotations concerning one are distinct from annotations concerning the other. We do not intend to make other changes in response to your comment. The earlier response to RDF Core WG motivates having two concepts, but OWL Full users can use either largely interchangeably. Please reply copying public-webont-comments@w3.org whether the changes made in response to your comment are sufficient. Jeremy Carroll ]]
Received on Monday, 22 September 2003 07:59:20 UTC