Re: RDF mapping of datarange complements brings problem for DL/Full relationship from Peter F. Patel-Schneider on 2008-06-04 (public-owl-wg@w3.org from June 2008)

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2008 07:01:37 -0400 (EDT)
To: schneid@fzi.de
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org, jjc@hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <20080604.070137.158459432.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>

From: "Michael Schneider" <schneid@fzi.de>
Subject: RE: RDF mapping of datarange complements brings problem for DL/Full relationship
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 09:58:12 +0200

> Hi Peter!
> 
> >> (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
> 
> AFAICS, this would lead to rdfs:Literal being equivalent to owl:Thing.
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael

How so?

peter

Received on Wednesday, 4 June 2008 11:03:54 UTC