- From: Jesse Weaver <weavej3@rpi.edu>
- Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 12:02:08 -0400
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>
- Cc: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@deri.org>, semantic-web@w3.org
That may be according to most (or all known) implementations, but I don't think that's true for the DL-based semantics of OWL 2. From [1]: * \Delta_I is a nonempty set called the object domain. * \Delta_D is a nonempty set disjoint with \Delta_I called the data domain .... * \cdot^C is the class interpretation function .... * (owl:Thing)^C = \Delta_I * \cdot^{DT} is the datatype interpretation function .... * (rdfs:Literal)^{DT} = \Delta_D Since \Delta_I and \Delta_D are disjoint, then (owl:Thing)^C and (rdfs:Literal)^{DT} are disjoint. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-direct-semantics-20091027/#Interpretations Jesse Weaver Ph.D. Student, Patroon Fellow Tetherless World Constellation Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~weavej3/index.xhtml On Oct 14, 2010, at 11:41 AM, Jeremy Carroll wrote: > Yes > > > The way to answer this is to assess the truth of > > rdfs:Literal rdfs:subClassOf owl:Thing . > > In some systems this is a syntax error. > In some systems this is necessarily true. > In no systems is this false. > > Jeremy > > > > >
Received on Thursday, 14 October 2010 16:02:20 UTC