Re: [RIF] Extensible Design

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