Re: [TED] CORE Pages Edited for Uniform Constants and Multisorted Approach: Actions 186 and 192

Boley, Harold wrote:

> Omitting the 'type' attribute can be regarded as specifying the
> appropriate 'root' type: a "primitive", arrow, or boolean sort
> (http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/CORE/Conditions/Positive,
> section "Multisorted Extensions of the RIF Core").
> 
> The "primitive" sort is the root as used in order-sorted logics
> (often called Any) 

Ah, that makes sense.

> and description logics (in OWL called Thing).

Yes but ...

> So, the untyped
> 
> <Con>6</Con>
> 
> can be regarded as specifying the owl:Thing root type
> (cf. http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/rdfs.html#5.2)
> 
> <Con type="http://...owl#Thing">6</Con>
> 
> This default type can also be assumed for IRI'zed individuals.
> 
> So, the untyped, webized
> 
> <Con iri="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_6"/>
> 
> can be regarded as specifying
> 
> <Con type="http://...owl#Thing"
>      iri="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_6"/>

That particular case might be legal but in general I'm not sure the root 
sort can be OWL:Thing.

We want to use IRIs at least for datatypes, property names and class 
names as well as individuals. In OWL/DL then only individuals are 
instances of owl:Thing - classes, properties and individuals are 
mutually disjoint.

Perhaps the root sort should be rdfs:Resource. In an OWL/full 
interpretation rdfs:Resource and owl:Thing do have the same extension 
but I assume we want to at least leave open the possibility of OWL/DL 
compatibility.

Dave