W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > February 2010

Re: how to define that a relation is a dataype?

From: Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 13:42:06 -0800
Message-ID: <4B82FA2E.9030407@topquadrant.com>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
CC: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Story Henry <henry.story@bblfish.net>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>, foaf-protocols@lists.foaf-project.org
Pat Hayes wrote:
> Dan is absolutely correct. See below.
>
>>
>> I don't think so. I'm pretty sure the 2004 specs are silent on the
>> use of datatypes as properties. Both directions are consistent
>> semantic extensions.
>
> Yes, you are right. So this semantic extension is perfectly legal, 
> contrary to what I was claiming. <Sound of crows being eaten />
>
> Sigh. However, it seems utterly crazy to me to use the same URI to 
> denote both a mapping (inside a typed literal) and its inverse mapping 
> (as a property). If I had even thought that anyone would want do that, 
> I would have urged that we made it illegal back when we were writing 
> the specs. The only possible reason for it that I can see would be to 
> set out to make things deliberately confusing.

I find Henry's examples fairly compelling, and wouldn't want them to be 
illegal. Not something I would do myself, but certainly plausible.

Jeremy
Received on Monday, 22 February 2010 21:43:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 21:45:34 GMT