ISSUE-73: REJECTED: Should owl:Thing be necessarily infinite?

infinite universe

REJECTED: Should owl:Thing be necessarily infinite?

State:

CLOSED

Product:

Raised by:

Jeremy Carroll

Opened on:

2007-11-21

Description:

In this description the 'universe' means the class extension of owl:Thing.


In OWL 1.0 Full, the universe is necessarily infinite.

In OWL 1.0 DL, the universe is required to be non-empty.

The compatibility between OWL Full and OWL DL could be enhanced by requiring the universe to be infinite in both cases.

Looking at:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-dev/2007AprJun/0131
and related messages, this is not difficult to implement.

From a modelling point of view, any model with a finite domain of discourse, would model that domain as a subclass of owl:Thing; and the domain owl:Thing would be reserved as everything in a Web context, for which it is difficult to give a finite bound.

Related Actions Items:

No related actions

Related emails:

1. Re: Consensus on ISSUE-73 (was Re: Universal Property) (from alanruttenberg@gmail.com on 2008-01-18)
2. Re: Consensus on ISSUE-73 (was Re: Universal Property) (from hendler@cs.rpi.edu on 2008-01-18)
3. Re: Consensus on ISSUE-73 (from sandro@w3.org on 2008-01-18)
4. Re: Consensus on ISSUE-73 (was Re: Universal Property) (from jjc@hpl.hp.com on 2008-01-18)
5. Re: Consensus on ISSUE-73 (was Re: Universal Property) (from jjc@hpl.hp.com on 2008-01-18)
6. Re: Consensus on ISSUE-73 (from pfps@research.bell-labs.com on 2008-01-18)
7. Re: Consensus on ISSUE-73 (was Re: Universal Property) (from bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk on 2008-01-18)
8. Re: Consensus on ISSUE-73 (was Re: Universal Property) (from alanruttenberg@gmail.com on 2008-01-18)
9. Re: Consensus on ISSUE-73 (was Re: Universal Property) (from jjc@hpl.hp.com on 2008-01-18)
10. RE: Consensus on ISSUE-73 (was Re: Universal Property) (from schneid@fzi.de on 2008-01-18)
11. Re: Consensus on ISSUE-73 (was Re: Universal Property) (from jjc@hpl.hp.com on 2008-01-18)
12. Re: Consensus on ISSUE-73 (was Re: Universal Property) (from jjc@hpl.hp.com on 2008-01-18)
13. Re: Consensus on ISSUE-73 (was Re: Universal Property) (from bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk on 2008-01-18)
14. Re: Consensus on ISSUE-73 (was Re: Universal Property) (from jjc@hpl.hp.com on 2008-01-18)
15. Consensus on ISSUE-73 (was Re: Universal Property) (from bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk on 2008-01-18)
16. About DENY proposal: ISSUE-73 infinite universe (from schneid@fzi.de on 2008-01-16)
17. Re: Proposal to close ISSUE-73 (was Re: My ACTION-64 (to propose closing ISSUE-29)) (from bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk on 2008-01-14)
18. Re: Proposal to close ISSUE-73 (was Re: My ACTION-64 (to propose closing ISSUE-29)) (from sattler@cs.man.ac.uk on 2008-01-14)
19. Re: Proposal to close ISSUE-73 (was Re: My ACTION-64 (to propose closing ISSUE-29)) (from jjc@hpl.hp.com on 2008-01-14)
20. RE: Proposal to close ISSUE-73 (was Re: My ACTION-64 (to propose closing ISSUE-29)) (from boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk on 2008-01-11)
21. Re: Proposal to close ISSUE-73 (was Re: My ACTION-64 (to propose closing ISSUE-29)) (from hendler@cs.rpi.edu on 2008-01-10)
22. Proposal to close ISSUE-73 (was Re: My ACTION-64 (to propose closing ISSUE-29)) (from bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk on 2008-01-10)
23. Re: ISSUE-73 (infinite universe): REPORTED: Should owl:Thing be necessarily infinite? (from rector@cs.man.ac.uk on 2007-12-05)
24. Re: ISSUE-73 (infinite universe): REPORTED: Should owl:Thing be necessarily infinite? (from bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk on 2007-11-22)
25. Re: ISSUE-73 (infinite universe): REPORTED: Should owl:Thing be necessarily infinite? (from jjc@hpl.hp.com on 2007-11-22)
26. Re: ISSUE-73 (infinite universe): REPORTED: Should owl:Thing be necessarily infinite? (from hendler@cs.rpi.edu on 2007-11-21)
27. Re: ISSUE-73 (infinite universe): REPORTED: Should owl:Thing be necessarily infinite? (from sattler@cs.man.ac.uk on 2007-11-21)
28. ISSUE-73 (infinite universe): REPORTED: Should owl:Thing be necessarily infinite? (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2007-11-21)

Related notes:

Display change log