- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 17:12:57 +0100
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
> I changed to > > An object property is <em>complex</em> if > 1/ it is specified as being functional or inverse-functional, > 2/ there is some cardinality restriction that uses it, > 3/ it has an inverse that is complex, or > 4/ it has a super-property that is complex. > Complex properties cannot be specified as being transitive. > > which should cover all the bases (cases?). Yes. > > > B: Literal > > The problem here is that RDF datatyping is broken. The best way (in my > opinion) of fixing it would make rdfs:Literal belong to rdfs:Datatype in > RDFS. I'm still hoping that this will happen. > Oh - I would like to understand this better - are any of your rdf lc issues particularly pertinent? rdfs:Literal does not feel much like a datatype to me because it does not have a lexical-to-value mapping (well I guess it has a relation between lexical forms and values, but it is many-to-many). I guess this one will best be dealt with during last call. I am happy to re-raise it as a last call issue. Jeremy
Received on Tuesday, 25 March 2003 11:12:51 UTC