- From: Deborah L. McGuinness <dlm@ksl.stanford.edu>
- Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 12:11:15 -0500
- To: Evan Wallace <ewallace@cme.nist.gov>
- CC: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
Evan Wallace wrote: > > 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 >> >> >>> Boris' action ( documented in >>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Feb/0129.html) >>> updated the text of >>> the structural specification document to allow datatypeRestrictions >>> only on datatypes. I am uncomfortable with this new >>> constraint, although I understand this was decided at last week's >>> telecon (I was out sick). >> >> What would you prefer? >> >> The syntax restriction was put in to prevent constructs like: >> >> DatatypeRestriction(DataComplementOf(xsd:integer) >> minExclusive "1"^^xsd:integer) >> >> whose meaning is, at best, unclear. >> >> > My concern about the new constraint is that it will eliminate the > ability for communities to define their > own datatypes and then restrict those. I work with communities where it would be valuable to be able to create their own datatype and then be able to further restrict these. > Allowing restrictions of DatatypeRestrictions would support this > without opening the full Pandora's box of DataComplementOf. I would > be comfortable with this option. >>> 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. >>> -Evan >>> >> >> peter >> >> > >
Received on Wednesday, 27 February 2008 17:11:33 UTC