- From: Leo Obrst <lobrst@mitre.org>
- Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2003 09:51:08 -0500
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- CC: "Roger L. Costello" <costello@mitre.org>, www-webont-wg@w3.org
For the second case, OWL DL/Lite, is it true that you can't make it? Or that it would be defined as rdf:Property, but that the latter's subclasses (owl: DataatypeProperty and owl: ObjectProperty) are disjoint, hence could cause real problems? If you had such a definition, i.e., defined to be rdf:Property, in an ontology, would that automatically push you into OWL FULL? Leo Dan Connolly wrote: > On Sun, 2003-03-02 at 07:02, Roger L. Costello wrote: > > Hi Folks, > > > > Suppose that I want to define a property without an rdfs:range. Thus, > > the property can have any value - a string (datatype) value or an object > > value. Right? > > In OWL Full, yes... > > > Then how do I define the property - as an > > owl:ObjectProperty or as an owl:DatatypeProperty? > > neither. owl:ObjectProperty excludes string values, > and owl:DatatypeProperty excludes non-datatype values. > > So you can't make an OWL DL/Lite ontology with > such a beast. > > In OWL Full, it's just an ordinary rdf:Property. > > > /Roger > -- > Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ -- _____________________________________________ Dr. Leo Obrst The MITRE Corporation mailto:lobrst@mitre.org Intelligent Information Management/Exploitation Voice: 703-883-6770 7515 Colshire Drive, M/S H305 Fax: 703-883-1379 McLean, VA 22102-7508, USA
Received on Sunday, 2 March 2003 09:51:55 UTC