W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-dev@w3.org > October to December 2006

Re: User-defined Datatypes: owl:DataRange vs rdfs:Datatype

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 09:47:19 -0500
Message-Id: <ABCFC980-2A65-47D9-8BBA-14CBDC45268A@gmail.com>
Cc: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>, public-owl-dev@w3.org
To: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
No, I've got it wrong. My mistake is that the fact that the names are  
disjoint sets doesn't mean what I suggest. Specifically "Only classes  
have instances" appears wrong since the set EC which I understand to  
be "instances" is the union of individuals and data values.

I think the correct answer will be found here: http://www.w3.org/TR/ 

I'll try again later.


On Dec 7, 2006, at 8:20 AM, Dave Reynolds wrote:

>> If I understand this correctly,  it says that VC (the class names  
>> of a vocabulary) and VD(the datatype names of a vocabulary) are  
>> disjoint. That is, a datatype is not a class. Only classes have  
>> instances. So even for the built-in xsd:int, the statement from  
>> RDFS "xsd:int, is a subclass of rdfs:Literal" can't hold. And so  
>> user defined datatypes are no different than the builtins.
> Surely VC here is the set of owl:Classes which is a subset of the  
> set of rdfs:Classes. The statement:
>    xsd:int rdfs:subClassOf  rdfs:Literal .
> can and does hold in RDFS, it is just that both of these are  
> rdfs:Classes but not owl:Classes. Such a statement is of course not  
> valid OWL/DL (and thus presumably not OWL 1.1) but it is perfectly  
> good OWL (with species type OWL/full).
> Dave
Received on Thursday, 7 December 2006 14:47:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:58:14 UTC