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

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