Re: [Full] another minor issue with OWL Full/ rdfs:Datatype vs owl:DataRange from Peter F. Patel-Schneider on 2008-05-14 (public-owl-wg@w3.org from May 2008)

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 03:47:57 -0400 (EDT)
To: jjc@hpl.hp.com
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <20080514.034757.193510949.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>

I don't think that the rationale was that owl:DataRange was a synonym
for rdfs:Datatype, just that there was no reason not to make it a
synonym.

The OWL Full semantics allows for lots and lots of data ranges, both
finite and infinite, and doesn't require them to belong to
rdfs:Datatype.  I believe that the OWL 2 Full semantics could easily
define owl:DataRange to be equivalent to rdfs:Datatype, with no real
change to how data ranges or data types work.

peter


From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Subject: [Full] another minor issue with OWL Full/ rdfs:Datatype vs owl:DataRange
Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 15:05:07 +0100

> We earlier decided to deprecate DataRange since it is a synonym for
> Datatype.
> 
> But it isn't quite.
> 
> The OWL Full semantics allows for infinite DataRange's, and does not
> require them to be Datatype's.
> 
> Jeremy
> 
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 14 May 2008 07:52:53 UTC