W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > October 2003

RE: testing that RDF datatypes can have more than one URI name

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 17:04:51 +0200
To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Dan Brickley" <danbri@w3.org>, <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BHEGLCKMOHGLGNOKPGHDIECHCCAA.jjc@hpl.hp.com>


No it's not - but that's enough to work on - I'll try and get that in today.

Aside to Peter - on the user defined datatypes issue.
I think S&AS currently permits the following in OWL DL

eg:dt1 rdf:type owl:Thing .
eg:dt2 rdf:type owl:Thing .
eg:dt1 owl:sameAs eg:dt2 .
eg:i rdf:type owl:Thing .
eg:p rdf:type owl:DatatypeProperty .
eg:i eg:p "foo"^^eg:dt1 .
eg:r rdf:type owl:Class .
eg:r owl:equivalentClass _:r .
_:r rdf:type owl:Restriction .
_:r owl:onProperty eg:p .
_:r owl:hasValue "foo"^^eg:dt2 .

====

A natural reading of this would entail

eg:i rdf:type eg:r .

i.e. eg:i is known to have value "foo"^^eg:dt1 hence it also is known to
have value "foo"^^eg:dt2 .

However, this lies outside the bounds of what we are expecting
implementations to do and the best fix is to change the abstract syntax for
^^ to be string^^datatypeID .




Jeremy





> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-webont-wg-request@w3.org
> [mailto:www-webont-wg-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Dan Connolly
> Sent: 10 October 2003 15:51
> To: Jos De_Roo
> Cc: Peter F. Patel-Schneider; Brian McBride; Dan Brickley;
> www-webont-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: testing that RDF datatypes can have more than one URI name
>
>
>
> Is this now in the OWL test suite? I don't really
> know where to look. I'd like to tell RDF Core that
> my action is done.
>
> On Fri, 2003-08-15 at 08:20, Jos De_Roo wrote:
> > Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> [...]
> > >
> > > Here is a QName triples version (translate as appropriate for RDF/XML)
> > >
> > >            xsd:decimal owl:sameAs ex:bar .
> > >            ex:xx ex:yy "01^^ex:bar .
> >
> > I had trouble parsing the last triple, but
> >             ex:xx ex:yy "01"^^ex:bar .
> > worked better ;-)
> >
> > > owl full entails
> > >
> > >            ex:xx ex:yy "1"^^xsd:decimal .
> > >
> > > because ex:bar and xsd:decimal have the same denotation and
> thus have the
> > > same L2V mapping.
> > >
> > > Note that this only depends on the datatype map mapping xsd:decimal to
> > the
> > > XSD decimal type, and does not depend on ex:bar being in the datatype
> > map.
> >
> > I again had trouble to infer that, but this time due to
> > a shortcoming in our implementation of the substitution
> > of equals-for-equals; I made a trial change and then
> > it worked (but I have to eventually reconsider it).
> >
> > jos
> >
> > > peter
>
> --
> Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 10 October 2003 11:13:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:02 GMT