W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > November 2007

Re: User defined datatypes & XML Schema WG

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2007 21:54:08 +0000
Message-Id: <BC2A1908-9B79-4343-9167-62AB3396631C@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>

On Nov 4, 2007, at 10:24 AM, Bijan Parsia wrote:

> This is discharged what I thought was an action item, but may have  
> just been a request :)

This is writtened befored coffeed.

Sheesh!

Trivial issues:
===========

http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Syntax#Data_Ranges

* Syntax doc doesn't list the built-in datatypes (carried over from  
OWL 1.0). It does have a pointer to the semantics document which  
lists them:
	"""The list of the datatypes supported in OWL 1.1 is given in [OWL  
1.1 Semantics]; furthermore, this list can be extended by  
implementations as needed."""

	I'll survey existing support for these (at least in Pellet & FaCT+ 
+;)) Boris could speak to Kaon2's support.

* Syntax doc uses "datatypeUri" to refer to data predictes of  
arbitrary arity. I found this a bit confusing (as did Alan).

* I wonder if it's worth having dataOneOf for predicates of arbitrary  
arity or would it just be borrowing trouble :)

Bigger (datatype) issues:
===================

* URIs for externally defined datatypes in XML Schema documents
* Syntax for inline Datatype restrictions in RDF mapping and XML syntax.

Currently, we have:

DatatypeRestriction(dr facet ct):

	_:x rdf:type owl:DataRange
	_:x owl11:onDataRange T(dr)
	_:x owl11:facet ct

I.e.,
DatatypeRestriction(xsd:integer minInclusive 5):

	_:x rdf:type owl:DataRange.
	_:x owl11:onDataRange xsd:integer.
	_:x owl11:facet "5".

For a datatype (>= 5)

We could reuse XML Schema syntax:

	_:x rdf:type owl:DataRange.
	_:x owl11:restrictedBy """<restriction base='integer'>
     <minInclusive value='100'/>
   </restriction>"""^^rdf:XMLLiteral.

Pros: reuses XML schema syntax.
Cons: Bit more annoying for toolkits.

So, this probably needs review from the XML Schema WG, but it'd would  
be good to know what our WG thinks.

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Sunday, 4 November 2007 21:55:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:13:27 GMT