RE: Changes to make S&AS consistent with RDF Semantics document

> 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.


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.


Received on Thursday, 4 December 2003 13:01:57 UTC