W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > October 2010

Re: Any objections against using xsd:anySimpleType or rdfs:Literal as the rdfs:range for OWL datatype properties?

From: Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 13:18:25 +0200
Cc: nathan@webr3.org, semantic-web@w3.org, public-lod@w3.org
Message-Id: <57E2B340-9925-40E4-9134-103F30276037@ebusiness-unibw.org>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Hi Pat:
Apologies for the delay!
> Well, you could define your own datatype which is the union of  
> these, in the required sense. That might be generally useful in any  
> case, and might get used more widely if you were to publicize it.
>

I am a bit concerned that this will hamper the ability of current RDF  
repositories to execute SPARQL queries properly, e.g. in FILTER  
statements. If they don't spot the datatype right, they may interpret  
the lexical representation wrongly.

> Um, does it have to be a datatype? You really just need a class  
> containing the relevant values, right? And this class is simply the  
> union of the 5 datatype value classes.

I thought that defining an OWL class that is the union of xsd:float  
and xsd:decimal, e.g.

  foo:numeric a owl:Class ;
	owl:unionOf (xsd:float xsd:decimal) ;

and then using this as the range for a datatype property

   foo:ratio a owl:DatatypeProperty ;
	rdfs:range foo:numeric .

and then using this property with a typed literal

   foo:value1 a gr:QuantitativeValue ;
	gr:hasValue "10"^^xsd:decimal .

would put me into OWL Full.

Or am I wrong?

Martin


On 25.09.2010, at 06:01, Pat Hayes wrote:

>
> On Sep 23, 2010, at 1:21 PM, Martin Hepp wrote:
>
>> Hi all:
>> Thanks! So I understand that for an owl:DatatypeProperty that may  
>> hold xsd:float, xsd:integer, xsd:int, xsd:double, or xsd:decimal  
>> values, the simplest solution is rdfs:Literal.
>>
>> Is that correct?
>>
>> xsd:decimal would include xsd:integer and xsd:int (?), but there is  
>> no standard datatype that defines the union of float/double/decimal.
>>
>> Any other solutions?
>
> Well, you could define your own datatype which is the union of  
> these, in the required sense. That might be generally useful in any  
> case, and might get used more widely if you were to publicize it.
>
> Um, does it have to be a datatype? You really just need a class  
> containing the relevant values, right? And this class is simply the  
> union of the 5 datatype value classes.
>
> Pat Hayes
>
>
>>
>> Best
>>
>> Martin
>>
>>
>> On 23.09.2010, at 14:59, Nathan wrote:
>>
>>> Martin Hepp wrote:
>>>> Dear all:
>>>> Are there any theoretical or practical problems caused by  
>>>> defining the range of an owl:DatatypeProperty as
>>>> http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#anySimpleType
>>>
>>> RDF Semantics has a good discussion on this at:
>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#dtype_interp
>>>
>>> note that:
>>> "The other built-in XML Schema datatypes are unsuitable for  
>>> various reasons, and SHOULD NOT be used: xsd:duration does not  
>>> have a well-defined value space (this may be corrected in later  
>>> revisions of XML Schema datatypes, in which case the revised  
>>> datatype would be suitable for use in RDF datatyping); xsd:QName  
>>> and xsd:ENTITY require an enclosing XML document context; xsd:ID  
>>> and xsd:IDREF are for cross references within an XML document;  
>>> xsd:NOTATION is not intended for direct use; xsd:IDREFS,  
>>> xsd:ENTITIES and xsd:NMTOKENS are sequence-valued datatypes which  
>>> do not fit the RDF datatype model."
>>>
>>> Because a range of xsd:anySimpleType effectively includes/allows  
>>> the use of xsd:duration and the aforementioned then it may not be  
>>> the best range.
>>>
>>> All "afaict" :) Best,
>>>
>>> Nathan
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494  
> 3973
> 40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
> Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
> FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile
> phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 12 October 2010 11:19:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 31 March 2013 14:24:29 UTC