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

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

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 17:53:06 +0100
Message-ID: <482B18F2.3000509@hpl.hp.com>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
CC: public-owl-wg@w3.org

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

Received on Wednesday, 14 May 2008 16:54:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:04 UTC