W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > September 2009

Re: Bugs found in the editor draft for OWL 2 RL - RIF

From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 18:48:29 +0100
Message-ID: <4AC399ED.6040007@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
CC: "Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Ivan Herman wrote:

>>> Also, though this is more editorial than other... My understanding of
>>> your encoding on the dt-type2 rule (in 4.4.3) is that
>>> ?lt[rdf:type->?ty rdf:type->rdfs:Literal]
>>> does actually slightly more than what dt-type2 requires, insofar as it
>>> also generates the (?lt rdf:type rdfs:Literal) which is, strictly
>>> speaking, not in dt-type2. Though it is _correct_ to add it there
>>> because there is a subsumption on that triple, maybe it deserves an
>>> editorial note...
>> I don't agree with this one, though as you say it is more editorial.
>> In the OWL 2 Profiles document dt-type2 says that it asserts
>> T(lt, rdf:type, dt) ""for each literal lt and each datatype dt 
>> supported in OWL 2 RL such that the data value of lt is contained in 
>> the value space of dt"". The issue is that rdfs:Literal is listed as a 
>> supported datatype for OWL 2 RL and since all those literal values are 
>> contained in rdfs:Literal then dt-type2 should in fact be asserting 
>> those triples as well.
> O.k. It may still be good to note that in the document itself, just to 
> help casual readers like me:-)

OK, done.

Received on Wednesday, 30 September 2009 17:49:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:47:57 UTC