- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 10:29:44 -0400
- To: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
- Cc: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>, Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
I have added a proposal to resolve this as per your and MIchael's proposal, to the agenda tomorrow. -Alan On Jun 10, 2008, at 8:50 AM, Boris Motik wrote: > > Hello, > > I don't see any problem in doing this. Therefore, if there are no > objections, we can declare this to be editorial and I'll just > change the mapping. > > Regards, > > Boris > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg- >> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Michael >> Schneider >> Sent: 10 June 2008 13:47 >> To: public-owl-wg@w3.org >> Subject: ISSUE-124: Proposal to rename URI in RDF mapping of >> datarange complements [WAS: RDF mapping >> of datarange complements brings problem for DL/Full relationship] >> >> [related to ISSUE-124] >> >> Peter F. Patel-Schneider answered to me on Thursday, June 05: >> >>> OK, if you keep the same meaning for owl:complementOf for >>> datatypes and >>> you keep the same RDF mapping for datatype complements, then you >>> do get >>> this result. >>> >>> The solution is then to change one of the premises, and I'm >>> perfectly >>> happy modifying the RDF mapping. >>> >>> peter >> >> So, as discussed at the last telco, I propose to change the RDF >> mapping for >> datarange complements from currently >> >> _:x rdf:type rdfs:Datatype >> _:x owl:complementOf T(DR) >> >> to >> >> _:x rdf:type rdfs:Datatype >> _:x owl:datatypeComplementOf T(DR) >> >> This naming seems coherent, since we then always talk about >> "datatype"s in >> the context of datarange (or datatype) restrictions: >> >> * ... rdf:type rdfs:Datatype >> * ... owl:onDatatype ... >> * ... owl:datatypeComplementOf ... >> >> Cheers, >> Michael > > >
Received on Tuesday, 10 June 2008 14:30:22 UTC