- From: Irene Polikoff <irene@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 14:44:19 -0500
- To: Arthur Ryman <arthur.ryman@gmail.com>
- CC: "public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
Arthur, Prior to OWL 2, OWL DL indeed had a strict limitation regarding disjointness of classes and individuals, but this limitation was removed in OWL 2 even for DL. Users wanted to be able to have the same thing as a class and an individual and further work on the tableau algorithms for DL revealed that they can cope with this. At least, this is my understanding of where things stand today. Best, Irene Polikoff On 11/12/15, 2:24 PM, "Arthur Ryman" <arthur.ryman@gmail.com> wrote: >Irene, > >I am referring to OWL DL. The partitioning of things into classes, >properties, and individuals allows you to express description logics >in OWL. This is a restricted style of modelling which is simpler to >understand and makes certain computations more tractable. > >-- Arthur > >On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Irene Polikoff <irene@topquadrant.com> >wrote: >> I may have mentioned this before, but in case I didn©öt, I do not believe >> it is correct to say that the idea behind OWL is not to allow >>meta-classes >> and to have classes, properties and individuals to be disjoint. >> >> Irene Polikoff >> >> >> >> >> >> On 11/11/15, 11:24 PM, "Arthur Ryman" <arthur.ryman@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>I feel that people have an easier time understanding models in which >>>meta-classes are absent. This is the idea behind OWL and description >>>logic in which things are either classes, properties, or individuals. >> >>
Received on Thursday, 12 November 2015 19:44:54 UTC