W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > July to September 2003

Re: RDF test case on datatypes

From: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 10:13:03 +0100 (BST)
To: Olivier Corby <Olivier.Corby@sophia.inria.fr>
Cc: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, www-rdf-comments <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0308291009170.9776-100000@mail.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Olivier Corby wrote:

> OK, and with the following triples where it is explicitely stated that
> xsd:decimal and xsd:string ARE datatypes, is it still not false in an
> XSD-sensitive interpretation ?
> ex:foo ex:bar     ex:gee
> ex:gee rdf:type   xsd:decimal
> ex:bar rdfs:range xsd:string
> xsd:decimal rdf:type rdfs:Datatype
> xsd:string  rdf:type rdfs:Datatype

There is no satisfying RDFS+D(xsd:decimal, xsd:string)-interpretation;
however, for a reasoner to figure this out it would need to know that
xsd:decimal and xsd:string have nonintersecting value spaces. While it's
quite possible to build such knowledge into a reasoner, there is no
mechanism within _RDFS_ to be able to explicitly state (using triples)
that the class extensions of xsd:decimal and xsd:string are disjoint, so
such a conclusion (while valid), would come from "built-in" knowledge
about the datatypes.

OWL DL does provide this expressive capability.

jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/
Tel +44(0)117 9287088 Fax +44 (0)117 9287112 http://ioctl.org/jan/
Semantic rules, OK?
Received on Friday, 29 August 2003 05:16:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:15:21 UTC