W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-dev@w3.org > October to December 2009

Questions on RDF mapping of OWL 2 data ranges

From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 13:06:12 -0800
To: public-owl-dev@w3.org
Message-Id: <3E7040BC-4080-49A7-A786-0487BABD231E@topquadrant.com>
Dear group,

I am unsure about the right (and best) way of mapping user-defined OWL  
2 datatypes to RDF graphs. I have been skimming through the OWL specs  
but all examples I saw were of the following format (see http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-syntax-20091027/#Datatype_Definitions 
):

	a:SSN rdf:type rdfs:Datatype .
	a:SSN owl:equivalentClass _:x .
	_:x rdf:type rdfs:Datatype .
	_:x owl:onDatatype xsd:string .
	_:x owl:withRestrictions ( _:y ) .
	_:y xsd:pattern "[0-9]{3}-[0-9]{2}-[0-9]{4}" .

This means that a datatype is an instance of rdfs:Datatype that has an  
owl:equivalentClass of another (anonymous) datatype which then points  
to the fact restrictions as an rdf:List.

1) Would it also be allowed to use rdfs:subClassOf instead of  
owl:equivalentClass?

2) Would it be legal to attach the restrictions directly on the named  
datatype instead of going through the (very verbose!) blank node, e.g.

	a:SSN rdf:type rdfs:Datatype .
	a:SSN owl:onDatatype xsd:string .
	a:SSN owl:withRestrictions ( _:y ) .
	a:SSN xsd:pattern "[0-9]{3}-[0-9]{2}-[0-9]{4}" .

3) Is it legal (and good practice) to subclass existing datatypes,  
such as

	a:SNN rdfs:subClass xsd:string .

Thanks for clarifying these, so that we can built the best practices  
into our tools.
Holger
Received on Monday, 9 November 2009 21:07:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 27 March 2013 09:32:57 GMT