On May 31, 2010, at 2:42 PM, Mike Bennett wrote:
> David,
>
> I think we are cross purposes, I never suggested numbers. I should maybe
> explain a little more about the project I am working on. We are
> developing a formal semantic model of terms in the financial services
> industry, and to do this we are using the underlying concepts of OWL but
> restating these in English. In OWL there are classes (with the
> super-class of owl:Thing), and two types or properties, Object
> Properties and Datatype Properties. We refer to the OWL Classes as
> "Things" (01)
That doesn't seem like a good idea. In all species of OWL, every *instance* of
an owl:Class is an owl:Thing. But only in OWL Full can an owl:Class itself be
considered an owl:Thing. And even in the context of OWL Full it would be
rather perverse to use "Thing" as a general synonym for "Class" (as you seem to
be suggesting), at is muddies the distinction between classes and other kinds
of things in the OWL universe. (02)
Chris Menzel (03)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (04)
|