- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 19:01:30 +0100
- To: <herman.ter.horst@philips.com>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>, <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
> Whether you like it or not, rdf:XMLLiteral is part of OWL, in the sense > that each OWL DL consistency checker or OWL Full consistency checker that > is worthy of the name should recognize that the RDF graph G that I > mentioned, > v p l > p rdfs:range rdfs:Literal > where l is an ill-typed XML literal, is inconsistent. Herman, technically I happen to agree with you, but procedurally not-at-all. I noticed this problem, and argued for the full inclusion of XMLLiteral at the beginning of the year. I did not get sufficient support then, and I don't see any new information coming about simply because RDF semantics has been improved. We have had some relevant test cases in the OWL Test document for quite a while that show that in both OWL DL and OWL Full the very same document can be consistent or inconsitent depending on the implementation-dependent choice of supported datatypes. I don't like this, but the WG decided that, and we have had no negative feedback from the outside community. I think we (i.e. those of us who would prefer otherwise) should just live with this. Jeremy
Received on Thursday, 4 December 2003 13:01:57 UTC