Re: Are literals owl:Things?

The following ontology, which is consistent according to the OWL 2
Semantics, demonstrates that literals are not OWL things. In it, I
have said that owl:Thing is an enumerated class containing at most 2
individuals. One of those individuals has three data property literal
values 42,43,44 ^xsd:integer.

If the literals were instance of owl:Thing, this ontology would be
inconsistent as there can be only two distinct members of owl:Thing,
but there are three distinct literals.

-Alan

Prefix(xsd:=<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#>)
Prefix(rdfs:=<http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#>)
Prefix(owl:=<http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#>)
Prefix(:=<http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/example/>)

Ontology(<http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/example/literal-not-thing.owl>

Declaration(DataProperty(:dp))
AnnotationAssertion(rdfs:label :dp "dp")

Declaration(NamedIndividual(:a))
AnnotationAssertion(rdfs:label :a "a")
Declaration(NamedIndividual(:b))
AnnotationAssertion(rdfs:label :b "b")

EquivalentClasses(owl:Thing ObjectOneOf(:b :a))
DataPropertyAssertion(:dp :b "42"^^xsd:integer)
DataPropertyAssertion(:dp :b "44"^^xsd:integer)
DataPropertyAssertion(:dp :b "43"^^xsd:integer)
)



On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 4:05 PM, Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Oct 2010 09:38:24 -0700
> Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com> wrote:
>
>> I would actually say " I think you mean
>>
>> _:x owl:sameAs "42"^^xsd:integer .
>> _:x rdf:type  xsd:decimal .
>> "
>
> Another way to express:
>
>        "42"^^xsd:integer rdf:type  xsd:decimal .
>
> without needing to go as far as OWL might be:
>
>        :x rdfs:range xsd:decimal ; :x "42"^^xsd:integer .
>
> --
> Toby A Inkster
> <mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk>
> <http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
>
>
>

Received on Monday, 18 October 2010 02:35:29 UTC