<no subject>

Pat,

I was wondering if you had had a chance to look at the N3 rules
and entailment examples that I posted last week to the list. I've
attached the latest version of them below.

One lingering concern I have about rdfs:drange not having any
semantic relation to rdfs:range is that it leaves users with
no way to constrain explicitly typed property values within
the scope of RDF Schema validation. Even though one may
say that a property has an rdfs:drange of some datatype, that
information is irrelevant insofar as RDFS validation is
concerned.

The "interpretation" adopted by the attached rules tries to
remedy that while still providing for the maximal amount of
datatyping knowledge possible "below the line".

Insofar as literals are concerned, they are structured per
the recent WG decisions, but the ontology used herein ignores
all but the string portion and "pretends" that they are just
strings.

Anyway, your comments would be very much appreciated.

Cheers,

Patrick

--
               
Patrick Stickler              Phone: +358 50 483 9453
Senior Research Scientist     Fax:   +358 7180 35409
Nokia Research Center         Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com