W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > July 2006

RE: Multiple (conflicting) rdfs:range properties

From: Hans Teijgeler <hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl>
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 09:10:24 +0200
To: "'Patrick Stickler'" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, "'ext Paul Gearon'" <gearon@ieee.org>
Cc: <semantic-web@w3.org>
Message-ID: <001f01c6ad5d$eafab320$0202a8c0@hans>

Hi Patrick,

You wrote:  Of course, ideally, typed literals would simply be allowed as
subjects ;-)

Well, we defined an OWL Class for each XML Schema data type, such as
XmlSchemaString:

    <owl:Class rdf:ID="XmlSchemaString">
        <rdfs:subClassOf>
            <owl:Restriction>
                <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#content"/>
                <owl:allValuesFrom
rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string"/>
                <owl:cardinality
rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#nonNegativeInteger">1</owl:ca
rdinality>
            </owl:Restriction>
        </rdfs:subClassOf>
    </owl:Class>

Granted, it's more verbose, but we can now use it as subjects and objects,
e.g. for translation purposes.

Please let me know if we violated some OWL rule.

Regards,
Hans

____________________
OntoConsult
Hans Teijgeler
ISO 15926 specialist
Netherlands
+31-72-509 2005
www.InfowebML.ws 
hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl


-----Original Message-----
From: semantic-web-request@w3.org [mailto:semantic-web-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Patrick Stickler
Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 16:41
To: ext Paul Gearon
Cc: <semantic-web@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Multiple (conflicting) rdfs:range properties


On Jul 20, 2006, at 14:14, ext Paul Gearon wrote:

>
> Now if only we had some formal way of connecting a URI to a literal.

Prior to the introduction of datatyped literals, I defined and used the val:
URI scheme for this purpose, and in fact, this was input into the
discussion/design of typed literals -- the URI scheme being rejected both
because (a) it's yet another URI scheme and (b) URIs have
(practical) limits on the length of lexical forms which typed literals would
not have (as severely).

See attachment for details.

It would be possible to map between such URIs and typed literals in an
application. The val: URI would simply be a synonym for the typed literal,
and one could infer that for any val URI "val:(D)L"
with lexical form L and datatype D:

    val:(D)L owl:sameAs "L"^^D .

Of course, ideally, typed literals would simply be allowed as subjects ;-)

Cheers,

Patrick


--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.0.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.3/394 - Release Date: 20-Jul-06
 
    

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.0.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.3/394 - Release Date: 20-Jul-06
 
Received on Saturday, 22 July 2006 07:12:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 21:45:11 GMT