- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 17:10:02 +0000
- To: "Web Ontology Language ((OWL)) Working Group WG" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Concerning ISSUE-29, and my ACTION-27: If something is an rdfs:Datatype then it is required to a) http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_datatype [[ All instances of rdfs:Datatype correspond to the RDF model of a datatype ]] b) http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-concepts-20040210/#section-Datatypes [[ A datatype consists of a lexical space, a value space and a lexical-to-value mapping. ]] c) http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#dtype_interp [[ A datatype is an entity characterized by a set of character strings called lexical forms and a mapping from that set to a set of values. Exactly how these sets and mappings are defined is a matter external to RDF. Formally, a datatype d is defined by three items: 1. a non-empty set of character strings called the lexical space of d; 2. a non-empty set called the value space of d; 3. a mapping from the lexical space of d to the value space of d, called the lexical-to-value mapping of d. The lexical-to-value mapping of a datatype d is written as L2V(d). In stating the semantics we assume that interpretations are relativized to a particular set of datatypes each of which is identified by a URI reference. ]] but note that the final URI reference is not required for a datatype. === On the other hand an owl:DataRange is a set of literal values, (in OWL 1.0 only finite sets are supported). http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#EnumeratedDatatype (unhelpful??) http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/rdfs.html#5.2 [[ owl:DataRange CEXTI(e)⊆LVI OWL dataranges are special kinds of datatypes. ]] (text incorrect - well misleading, a datarange does not suggest a lexical-to-value mapping?) ==== My analysis is that the value space of any rdfs:Datatype is an owl:DataRange, because it satisfies CEXTI(e)⊆LVI, but not conversely, because of the lack of a lexical-to-value mapping. If this analysis holds, then Holger's suggestion of using an (anonymous) rdfs:Datatype in this case may be plausible, and is more precise than using owl:DataRange. Jeremy
Received on Tuesday, 27 November 2007 17:10:31 UTC