  Re: [OWLWG-COMMENT] ISSUE-55 (owl:class)  Date: Thu, 20 Dec
2007 03:57:00 -0500 (EST) Message-Id:
<20071220.035700.186614277.pfps@research.bell-labs.com> To:
schneid@fzi.de Cc: alanruttenberg@gmail.com, public-owl-
dev@w3.org  From: "Michael Schneider" <schneid@fzi.de> Subject:
RE: [OWLWG-COMMENT] ISSUE-55 (owl:class) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007
09:40:41 +0100  > Hi again, Alan! > Alan Ruttenberg wrote on
Monday, December 10:   > Looks like things have changed, because
Peter has found a way to make the > difference "perceivable": >
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-
wg/2007Dec/0227.html> > The trick is to force owl:Thing to be a
/finite/ class (in Peter's ontology > owl:Thing happens to equal
the union of the two defined classes, which are > both finite).
In OWL-Full owl:Thing is always infinite, while it may be >
finite in OWL-DL.   The only thing new in my example (which
isn't really new), is that it doesn't mention owl:Thing at all.
I put the example together this way to counter a claim that it