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

ISSUE-29 (owl:DataRange): REPORTED: User-defined Datatypes: owl:DataRange vs rdfs:Datatype

From: OWL <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 07:28:08 +0000 (GMT)
To: public-owl-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <20071025072808.089AC6B62C@kent.w3.org>

ISSUE-29 (owl:DataRange): REPORTED: User-defined Datatypes: owl:DataRange vs rdfs:Datatype


Raised by: Bijan Parsia
On product: 

Initially <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-dev/2006OctDec/0109.html>

From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 09:09:47 -0800
Message-ID: <4575A7DB.5030401@topquadrant.com>
To: public-owl-dev@w3.org


the current OWL 1.1 to RDF Graph mapping indicates that owl:DataRanges 
be used to express user-defined datatypes (such as xsd:int > 18).  Also, 
XSD facets appear to be called owl:<facet>, e.g. owl:minInclusive.

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.

Also, I think we should use the xsd namespace for the facet names, so 
that they are written as xsd:minInclusive.

Could anyone please clarify these issues?


PS: The family.owl linked from the OWL 1.1 web site currently appears to 
be inconsistent with the RDF mapping spec (at least with respect to the 
user-defined datatypes).

[1] http://protege.stanford.edu/plugins/owl/xsp.html
Received on Thursday, 25 October 2007 07:28:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:41:59 UTC