RE: Two further review comments on S&AS

> 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?).


> > 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.


Received on Tuesday, 25 March 2003 11:12:51 UTC