To: | "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
---|---|
From: | Chris Menzel <chris.menzel@xxxxxxxxx> |
Date: | Fri, 6 Jul 2012 16:25:13 -0500 |
Message-id: | <CAO_JD6Pn=DQkHAUpXFZ9E_emk2V2a88rPY9iPzpp3VrWvZ65GA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 4:05 PM, Michael Brunnbauer <brunni@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Actually, yes, there is an RDF-compatible semantics for OWL I'd forgotten about where OWL classes are simply entities that are assigned sets of individuals as their extensions. In this semantics, distinct classes can have the same "members". But IIRC in both the W3C "direct" semantics for OWL and the "model theoretic" semantics, OWL classes are simply sets of individuals.
Pat will probably jump in here and straighten me out...
-chris _________________________________________________________________ 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 (01) |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Truth, Chris Menzel |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Truth, Michael Brunnbauer |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Truth, Michael Brunnbauer |
Next by Thread: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Truth, Michael Brunnbauer |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |