- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 18:12:44 -0400 (EDT)
- To: schneid@fzi.de
- Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org, jjc@hpl.hp.com
From: "Michael Schneider" <schneid@fzi.de> Subject: RDF mapping of datarange complements brings problem for DL/Full relationship Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 23:02:57 +0200 > [cc'ed Jeremy, since he brought this point up at last telco] > [slightly related to ISSUE-124, but should be regarded as distinct > issue] > > Note: This mail serves as a base for the discussion in this week's > telco. > According to the agenda, we will discuss: > > [[ > Issue 124: > [...] > Michael's concern: Why not relative to whole domain > - including individials? > ]] > > (Just to be clear: I did not suggest to extend the complements > of dataranges to the "whole" domain in OWL DL. This would > make no sense. I only stated that in *OWL Full* the complement > actually *is* relative to the whole domain, and that this > difference between DL and Full may lead to problems. > I write this mail here to show such a problem.) I don't see that the situation in OWL Full is forced. The complement operator for dataranges could, I think, be relative to rdfs:Literal in OWL Full. peter
Received on Tuesday, 3 June 2008 22:15:06 UTC