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

RE: ISSUE-124: Proposal to rename URI in RDF mapping of datarange complements [WAS: RDF mapping of datarange complements brings problem for DL/Full relationship]

From: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 13:50:12 +0100
To: "'Michael Schneider'" <schneid@fzi.de>, <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <001e01c8caf8$85f8bbb0$4012a8c0@wolf>

Hello,

I don't see any problem in doing this. Therefore, if there are no objections, we can declare this to be editorial and I'll just
change the mapping.

Regards,

	Boris

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Michael
> Schneider
> Sent: 10 June 2008 13:47
> To: public-owl-wg@w3.org
> Subject: ISSUE-124: Proposal to rename URI in RDF mapping of datarange complements [WAS: RDF mapping
> of datarange complements brings problem for DL/Full relationship]
> 
> [related to ISSUE-124]
> 
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider answered to me on Thursday, June 05:
> 
> >OK, if you keep the same meaning for owl:complementOf for datatypes and
> >you keep the same RDF mapping for datatype complements, then you do get
> >this result.
> >
> >The solution is then to change one of the premises, and I'm perfectly
> >happy modifying the RDF mapping.
> >
> >peter
> 
> So, as discussed at the last telco, I propose to change the RDF mapping for
> datarange complements from currently
> 
>   _:x rdf:type rdfs:Datatype
>   _:x owl:complementOf T(DR)
> 
> to
> 
>   _:x rdf:type rdfs:Datatype
>   _:x owl:datatypeComplementOf T(DR)
> 
> This naming seems coherent, since we then always talk about "datatype"s in
> the context of datarange (or datatype) restrictions:
> 
>   * ... rdf:type rdfs:Datatype
>   * ... owl:onDatatype ...
>   * ... owl:datatypeComplementOf ...
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael
Received on Tuesday, 10 June 2008 12:51:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 10 June 2008 12:51:47 GMT