- 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