- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 16:39:35 +0000
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>, public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 15 Nov 2011, at 16:30, Ivan Herman wrote: >>>> Is it somehow possible under RDFS-Entailment + D-Entailment to get a value for "foo"^^bar if bar is not in the datatype map? >>> >>> It is not possible. >> >> I think you're mistaken. >> >> if <bar> owl:sameAs <baz>, and <baz> is an IRI in the datatype map, then "foo"^^<bar> may have a well-defined value even if the IRI <bar> is not in the datatype map. > > Just to play the disagreeable guy: owl:sameAs is not an RDFS term. If we are talking about RDFS-Entailment, this will not work... Ok, you're right Ivan, under RDFS-Entailment "foo"^^<bar> won't have a well-defined value. But to quote again the phrase from Section 5.1 that I quoted earlier: [[ The condition does not require that the URI reference in the typed literal be the same as the associated URI reference of the datatype; this allows semantic extensions which can express identity conditions on URI references to draw appropriate conclusions. ]] My original question was: Is it true that "foo"^^<bar> has an L2V-assigned value if and only if <bar> is in the domain of the datatype map? The answer to that is: “There might be entailment regimes where it's not true, OWL's RDF-based semantics being an example.” Best, Richard
Received on Tuesday, 15 November 2011 16:40:13 UTC