W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-dev@w3.org > October to December 2006

Re: User-defined Datatypes: owl:DataRange vs rdfs:Datatype

From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 16:48:30 -0800
Message-ID: <457764DE.2030005@topquadrant.com>
To: public-owl-dev@w3.org

Jeff Z. Pan wrote:
> Hi Holger,
>> I am wondering why user-defined datatypes are not modeled as instances 
>> of the RDF Schema class rdfs:Datatype (similar to the hack suggested 
>> in the Protege 3 implementation [1]).  Without knowing the design 
>> decisions that lead to the use of owl:DataRange, my naive point of 
>> view would be that rdfs:Datatypes may make it more consistent with the 
>> semantic web stack.  I am sure the working group had good reasons for 
>> selecting owl:DataRange, but it would be useful to understand them 
>> from the outside.
> In RDF, a datatype (instance of rdfs:Datatype) and a class (instance of 
> rdfs:Class) can share instances, such as the integer 42. While in OWL DL 
> (and hence OWL 1.1), the datatype domain is disjoint with the object 
> domain; therefore, sharing instances is not possible for an OWL DL/1.1 
> datatype and an OWL DL/1.1 class.
> Greetings,
> Jeff

Thanks, Jeff.  But in RDF Schema, the pre-defined system datatypes such 
as xsd:int are instances of rdfs:Datatype as well [1].  Are user-defined 
datatypes different from system datatypes, or is OWL 1.1 changing the 
RDF Schema semantics here?  Apologies if this has been discussed and 
written down elsewhere - any pointers are appreciated.


[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_datatype
Received on Thursday, 7 December 2006 00:52:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:58:14 UTC