RE: Minor bug in http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/rdfs.html#5.2
Jeremy Carroll wrote:
>The OWL Full semantics entail that
>OWL:Nothing rdf:type rdfs:Datatype
You are right, I can see it! :) (See attachment below.)
>and similarly for any empty class.
>I believe this is unintentional,
I concur. And this *might* even lead to problems in certain situations, I am
>and can be fixed by the addition of
>"n >= 1" in the first of the "Further conditions on owl:oneOf" in the
Looks like the right solution to me. The case of an empty list / set will then
lead to an empty /class/.
Doing so won't conflict with the notion of an empty /datatype/, it is just
less specific: The resulting empty class may still have models which interpret
this class to be a datatype, this only cannot be entailed anymore. So
explicitly defining an empty datatype will /not/ lead to an inconsistent