- From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@urjc.es>
- Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 14:22:45 +0000
- To: Gerd Wagner <wagnerg@tu-cottbus.de>
- Cc: public-rif-wg@w3.org
Gerd Wagner wrote: >>However, making the domain/range be a non-literal rdfs:Class >>doesn't really impose any restriction. > > > It does, whenever most of your classes are disjoint, > which is typically the case in any real world ontology. > sorry for the later reaction on this thread, but doesn't this boil down to *querying* again? i.e. in order to type-check an rdf typed variable, one needs to *query* an OWL or RDFS ontology whether membership of the value bound to that variable is entailed. Thus, I do not exactly understand how: "3) Data literals, object names, function symbols and predicate symbols may be typed. Using suitable predicate/atom types, this allows to represent RDF and OWL rules directly (and not only via a "query interface")." from an earlier mail shall be understood? ... Do you mean that this querying is implicit? thanks for clarification, axel >>Less clearly, the object can be a URIreference without >>an error. > > > But only if this URIref is not also an instance of some > class. > > >>Further, if the value is a typed value but for an unknown >>type then there is no error because there is nothing to >>prevent the value for my datatype, that you haven't heard >>of, from overlaping with xsd:int. The >>open world assumption applies to datatypes as well. > > > OK, but that doesn't seem to be the typical case to me. > > -Gerd > > > > -- Dr. Axel Polleres email: axel@polleres.net url: http://www.polleres.net/
Received on Tuesday, 16 May 2006 15:05:07 UTC