W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > April 2003

Re: Draft RDFCore Comments on Owl Reference

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 21:35:36 +0300
To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <200304272135.36731.jjc@hpl.hp.com>

> #owlref-rdfcore-rdfs:literal-not-a-datatype

> rdfs:Literal is not a datatype.

comment also applicable about S&AS where the problem is more serious ...
(The grammatical restrictions on rdfs:Literal in OWL DL are that it may appear 
where a datatypeID may appear, except in a typed literal. However, OWL S&AS 
as well as

  eg:p rdf:type owl:DatatypeProperty .
  eg:p rdfs:range rdfs:Literal .

The first construction is probably harmless, since it is so obviously 

> #owlref-rdfcore-enumerated-datatype-in-xml

> 6.2 Enumerated datatype

> We suggest the following form


> #owlref-rdfcore-annotation-restriction

> 7.1 Annotations

The comment should be toned down, this is an editorial error. IIRC, the intent 
is not to restrict annotation properties in OWL Full. The text does need 

> #owlref-rdfcore-transitive-datatype-properties

eg:lessThan rdf:type   owl:TransitiveProperty .
eg:lessThan rdf:type   owl:DatatypeProperty .
eg:lessThan rdfs:domain xsd:decimal .
eg:lessThan rdfs:range xsd:decimal .
_:sa eg:lessThan _:sb .
_:sb eg:lessThan _:sc .

_:sa owl:sameIndividualAs "9"^^xsd:int.
_:sc owl:sameIndividualAs "3"^^xsd:int .

is inconsistent.

Received on Sunday, 27 April 2003 16:07:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:22 UTC