- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 11:01:57 -0500
- To: Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: <J.Wielemaker@vu.nl>, <steve.harris@garlik.com>, <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Well, it maybe does in a rather vague way, kinda. In http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#DtypeRules (section 7.4, datatype entailment rules), there is the following remark: "In addition, if it is known that the value space of the datatype denoted by ddd is a subset of that of the datatype denoted by eee, then it would be appropriate to assert that ddd rdfs:subClassOf eee . but this needs to be asserted explicitly; it does not follow from the subset relationship alone." which could be taken as a weak endorsement of the idea of treating the XSD hierarchy, transcribed using rdfs:subClassOf, as a correct RDFS ontology. So depending on what one means by 'sanction', .... Pat On Sep 26, 2011, at 9:09 AM, Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider wrote: > From: Jan Wielemaker <J.Wielemaker@vu.nl> > Subject: Re: Datayped tagged literals: a case for option 4 vs option 2d > Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 08:44:29 -0500 > > [...] > >> I know datatypes are organized in a hierarchy (see >> http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#built-in-datatypes), but I'm not aware >> that this hierarchy can be queried in RDF. > > I'm quite sure that no part of the RDF semantics sanctions this sort of > relationship between classes that are datatypes. > > peter > > ------------------------------------------------------------ IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Monday, 26 September 2011 16:02:46 UTC