W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > June 2008

RE: [Full] another minor issue with OWL Full/ rdfs:Datatype vs owl:DataRange

From: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 01:17:17 +0200
Message-ID: <0EF30CAA69519C4CB91D01481AEA06A096B01F@judith.fzi.de>
To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On May 14, Jeremy Carroll answered to Peter F. Patel-Schneider:

>Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>> I don't think that the rationale was that owl:DataRange was a synonym
>> for rdfs:Datatype, just that there was no reason not to make it a
>> synonym.
>>
>> The OWL Full semantics allows for lots and lots of data ranges, both
>> finite and infinite, and doesn't require them to belong to
>> rdfs:Datatype.  I believe that the OWL 2 Full semantics could easily
>> define owl:DataRange to be equivalent to rdfs:Datatype, with no real
>> change to how data ranges or data types work.
>>
>
>agreed - except OWL Full requires any finite class of literals to be a
>an rdfs:Datatype - but that's pedantry
>
>Jeremy

I had a look at my previous analysis [1] on owl:DataRange in OWL 1 Full. Based 
on this, I think that it's reasonable to make owl:DataRange equivalent to 
rdfs:Datatype. More precisely: I suggest to define the class extension of 
owl:DataRange to equal IDC, which happens to also be the class extension of 
rdfs:Datatype. Technically, there is no problem to follow this approach, since 
OWL 1 Full actually does not say what the class extension of owl:DataRange is.

I have made a few notes on the suggested changes in [2].

Cheers,
Michael

[1] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jan/0229.html>
[2] <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/FullSemanticsDataRanges>



Received on Sunday, 1 June 2008 23:18:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 1 June 2008 23:18:05 GMT