- From: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 10:13:03 +0100 (BST)
- To: Olivier Corby <Olivier.Corby@sophia.inria.fr>
- Cc: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, www-rdf-comments <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Olivier Corby wrote: > OK, and with the following triples where it is explicitely stated that > xsd:decimal and xsd:string ARE datatypes, is it still not false in an > XSD-sensitive interpretation ? > > ex:foo ex:bar ex:gee > ex:gee rdf:type xsd:decimal > ex:bar rdfs:range xsd:string > > xsd:decimal rdf:type rdfs:Datatype > xsd:string rdf:type rdfs:Datatype There is no satisfying RDFS+D(xsd:decimal, xsd:string)-interpretation; however, for a reasoner to figure this out it would need to know that xsd:decimal and xsd:string have nonintersecting value spaces. While it's quite possible to build such knowledge into a reasoner, there is no mechanism within _RDFS_ to be able to explicitly state (using triples) that the class extensions of xsd:decimal and xsd:string are disjoint, so such a conclusion (while valid), would come from "built-in" knowledge about the datatypes. OWL DL does provide this expressive capability. -- jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/ Tel +44(0)117 9287088 Fax +44 (0)117 9287112 http://ioctl.org/jan/ Semantic rules, OK?
Received on Friday, 29 August 2003 05:16:21 UTC