- From: Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 11:00:05 -0700
- To: Jesse Weaver <weavej3@rpi.edu>
- CC: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@deri.org>, semantic-web@w3.org
On 10/14/2010 9:02 AM, Jesse Weaver wrote:
> 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
>
no
The DL semantics does not discuss what an implementation should say in
response to my question.
A DL implementation does not answer your question.
Internally, it is probably implemented to align quite well with that
document, and literals and other resources will have different internal
representations; but as the user of such a system, you cannot answer the
question you pose.
Jeremy
Received on Thursday, 14 October 2010 18:00:53 UTC