- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 17:53:06 +0100
- 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 Jeremy
Received on Wednesday, 14 May 2008 16:54:37 UTC