Re: rdfs:Literal not a RDF datatype

From: Guus Schreiber <schreiber@cs.vu.nl>
Subject: rdfs:Literal not a RDF datatype
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 13:27:45 +0200

> 
> One of the comments from RDFCore on Reference is the following:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webont-comments/2003May/0004.html
> 
>  > #owlref-rdfcore-rdfs:literal-not-a-datatype
>  >
>  > [[
>  > A typed literal needs to have an XML attribute rdf:datatype of which
>  > the value is recommended to be one of the following:
>  > ...
>  >
>  > # The RDF datatype rdfs:Literal  which is the class of literals,
>  > typed and plain.
>  > ]]
>  >
>  > rdfs:Literal is not a datatype.
> 
> OK, so it should be removed from this list. Still, I assume we do not 
> want to forbid the use of rdfs:Literal as a possible data range. 
> Therefore, I wanted to change the following paragraph
> 
> [[
> OWL allows two types of data range specifications:
> 
>      * A RDF datatype specification.
>      * An enumerated datatype, using the owl:oneOf construct.
> ]]
> 
> to
> 
> [[
> OWL allows two types of data range specifications:
> 
>      * A RDF datatype specification.
>      * The class rdfs:Literal
>      * An enumerated datatype, using the owl:oneOf construct.
> ]]
> 
> However, when consulting S&AS on this, I found in the list of datatypes 
> in Sec. 2:
> 
> [[
> OWL also uses rdfs:Literal
> ]]
> 
> The production in Sec. 2.3.2.3 states:
> 
> [[
> dataRange ::= datatypeID
>              | 'oneOf(' { dataLiteral } ')'
> ]]

This needs to be expanded to 

 dataRange ::= datatypeID | rdfs:Literal 
              | 'oneOf(' { dataLiteral } ')'

> where "datatypeID" translates according to the mapping table into the 
> triple:
> 
> [[
>   	datatypeID rdf:type rdfs:Datatype
> ]]
> 
> So, something needs to change here, when rdfs:Literal is indeed not an 
> rdf:Datatype.

There needs to be a special translation for rdfs:Literal, of the form

	Syntax		Transformation		Main Node

	rdfs:Literal				rdfs:Literal

> Guus

Both these changes will show up shortly.

peter

Received on Wednesday, 4 June 2003 09:30:38 UTC