- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 09:47:19 -0500
- To: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>, public-owl-dev@w3.org
Received on Thursday, 7 December 2006 14:47:51 UTC
No, I've got it wrong. My mistake is that the fact that the names are disjoint sets doesn't mean what I suggest. Specifically "Only classes have instances" appears wrong since the set EC which I understand to be "instances" is the union of individuals and data values. I think the correct answer will be found here: http://www.w3.org/TR/ owl-semantics/rdfs.html#5.4 I'll try again later. Thanks, Alan On Dec 7, 2006, at 8:20 AM, Dave Reynolds wrote: >> If I understand this correctly, it says that VC (the class names >> of a vocabulary) and VD(the datatype names of a vocabulary) are >> disjoint. That is, a datatype is not a class. Only classes have >> instances. So even for the built-in xsd:int, the statement from >> RDFS "xsd:int, is a subclass of rdfs:Literal" can't hold. And so >> user defined datatypes are no different than the builtins. > > Surely VC here is the set of owl:Classes which is a subset of the > set of rdfs:Classes. The statement: > > xsd:int rdfs:subClassOf rdfs:Literal . > > can and does hold in RDFS, it is just that both of these are > rdfs:Classes but not owl:Classes. Such a statement is of course not > valid OWL/DL (and thus presumably not OWL 1.1) but it is perfectly > good OWL (with species type OWL/full). > > Dave
Received on Thursday, 7 December 2006 14:47:51 UTC