Re: Datayped tagged literals: a case for option 4 vs option 2d

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