W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > May 2014

Re: Are there any plans to develop an OWL version of QUDT?

From: Simon Spero <sesuncedu@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 21:53:51 -0400
Message-ID: <CADE8KM5wN8xjuYOtopPeGo6X6FGBreDDp8GcPSosGWwt2UF3Hw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
Cc: W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 1:31 AM, Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>wrote:

>  Simon,
>
> Yes in OWL, but in RDF this is perfectly valid, see
>
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-rdf11-concepts-20140225/#dfn-recognized-datatype-iris
>
> "Semantic extensions of RDF might choose to recognize other datatype
> IRIs..."
>

Right.  Except you define the data type using OWL. Which means you defined
the  lexical space to be empty.
What happens when you have a literal in RDF whose string is not in its
lexical space.

I will grant you that there are many legal RDF statements in the
vocabularies. Can you tell me what's going on with these ones?  If you
think they're fine, and perfectly consistent, feel free to just let this
thread die.

vaem:namespace

  rdf:type owl:DatatypeProperty ;

  rdfs:label "namespace"^^xsd:string ;

  rdfs:range xsd:anyURI ;

.

<http://qudt.org/1.1/schema/qudt>

      rdf:type owl:Ontology ;

      vaem:namespace "http://qudt.org/schema/qudt"^^xsd:string ;

.
Received on Friday, 9 May 2014 01:54:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:29:41 UTC