W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > February 2008

Re: Action 91 and issue 95

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 11:35:01 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20080227.113501.184732747.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: ewallace@cme.nist.gov
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org

From: Evan Wallace <ewallace@cme.nist.gov>
Subject: Action 91 and issue 95
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 11:09:14 -0500

> Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> > From: Evan Wallace <ewallace@cme.nist.gov>
> > Subject: Re: Agenda for teleconference Wednesday February 27th, 2008
> > Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 14:33:24 -0500

[...]

> >> In any case, the action isn't
> >> complete because the metamodel in figure 5, such as it is, hasn't
> >> been updated to match this new constraint.

> > Figure 5 was updated by Boris in 20 February.  It appears to me that
> > the current version of the figure corresponds to the current version
> > of the syntax (modulo the facet and value being valid for the
> > datatype). 
> >   
> It may have been updated but it's not completely in sync with the text.
> The pertinent part of the text reads, "Finally, the
> datatypeRestriction constructor creates a data range by applying one or
> more facet restriction to a datatype."  However,
> in Figure 5, seen via
> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Syntax&diff=3435&oldid=3313#Data_Ranges
> or http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Syntax (last modified 19:28, 20 Feb
> 2008), the DatatypeRestriction has an
> association to DataRange when it should be to Datatype. 

Hmm, yes, my mistake.  Indeed the dataRange association from
DatatypeRestriction should go to Datatype (and probably be called
something else as well).

peter
Received on Wednesday, 27 February 2008 16:35:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 27 February 2008 16:35:09 GMT