- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 13:59:00 +0100
- To: Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
- CC: semantic-web@w3.org, public-lod@w3.org
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
Received on Thursday, 23 September 2010 13:00:07 UTC