- From: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 18:27:10 -0000
- To: "'OWL Working Group WG'" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <005801c8796e$5db11930$7212a8c0@wolf>
Hello,
OK, some adjustments to the resolution were indeed needed in the other documents. I'm sorry for overlooking that initially. Here are
the diffs for the syntax and the semantics document:
RDF mapping:
http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Mapping_to_RDF_Graphs
<http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Mapping_to_RDF_Graphs&diff=3522&oldid=3520> &diff=3522&oldid=3520
Semantics:
http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Semantics
<http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Semantics&diff=3519&oldid=3500> &diff=3519&oldid=3500
Please let me know what you think.
Regards,
Boris
_____
From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Boris Motik
Sent: 20 February 2008 19:31
To: 'OWL Working Group WG'
Subject: RE: ISSUE-95 (Datatype-facet compatibility in DatatypeRestriction): No compatibility restrictions between the datatype
being restricted and the facets in the DatatypeRestriction construct
Hello,
As decided at today's teleconference, I have updated the spec to allow datatype restrictions to be stated only on datatypes. Here is
a diff:
http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Syntax <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Syntax&diff=3435&oldid=3313>
&diff=3435&oldid=3313
I've also updated Figure 5.
Unless someone objects, I believe that we can close this issue at our next meeting.
Regards,
Boris
_____
From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Boris Motik
Sent: 13 February 2008 19:55
To: 'OWL Working Group WG'
Subject: RE: ISSUE-95 (Datatype-facet compatibility in DatatypeRestriction): No compatibility restrictions between the datatype
being restricted and the facets in the DatatypeRestriction construct
Hello,
ISSUE-95 did not get resolved today because many people agreed that the current solution is just broken. In the e-mail I sent out on
Sunday (please see below), I think this issue can be resolved really easily by simply making Datatyperestriction take a Datatype as
an argument instead of a DataRange. I can implement this solution in 5 minutes, we can resolve the issue next week, and we can be
happy for making some progress.
I have heard some concerns that we should delay resolving this issue until the proposal for n-ary datatypes is ready. I do not see,
however, how this issue is related to n-ary datatypes. Clearly, when the n-ary datatypes are introduced, they can define their own
facets and extend the facet table compatibility. I do not see why this future extension should hinder closing the current issue in a
clean manner.
Could I ask people who are not in favor of my proposed solution to present their case?
Regards,
Boris
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Boris Motik
> Sent: 10 February 2008 20:11
> To: 'OWL Working Group WG'
> Subject: RE: ISSUE-95 (Datatype-facet compatibility in DatatypeRestriction): No compatibility
> restrictions between the datatype being restricted and the facets in the DatatypeRestriction
> construct
>
>
> Hello,
>
> I've just added a table to the structural specification that lists the compatibility between
> datatypes and facets. Here is a diff
> URL:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Syntax&diff=3312&oldid=3311
>
>
> To close ISSUE-95, we need to sort out the problem of what the restriction is being applied on. Since
> we all basically agree that
> nesting restrictions is either unclear from a semantic point of view (such as putting minInclusive on
> not(Integer)) or that nested
> restrictions can be flattened (such as putting a datatype restriction on another datatype
> restriction), I propose to keep the
> specification simple and to disallow nesting.
>
> Regards,
>
> Boris
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of OWL Working
> > Group Issue Tracker
> > Sent: 20 January 2008 12:55
> > To: public-owl-wg@w3.org
> > Subject: ISSUE-95 (Datatype-facet compatibility in DatatypeRestriction): No compatibility
> > restrictions between the datatype being restricted and the facets in the DatatypeRestriction
> > construct
> >
> >
> >
> > ISSUE-95 (Datatype-facet compatibility in DatatypeRestriction): No compatibility restrictions
> between
> > the datatype being restricted and the facets in the DatatypeRestriction construct
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/
> >
> > Raised by: Boris Motik
> > On product:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I believe that we have a slight problem with the DatatypeRestriction.
> >
> > 1. Problem
> > ----------
> >
> > Currently, the DatatypeRestriction construct takes one dataRange and several facet-value pairs.
> Note
> > two important points here:
> >
> > - The data range can be complex.
> > - There are no compatibility restrictions between the data range and the facets.
> >
> > The first point makes it possible to write DatatypeRestriction(
> > DataComplementOf(xsd:nonnegativeInteger) fractionDigits "2"^^xsd:integer). It is unclear how to
> > interpret this datatype. The complement of xsd:nonnegativeInteger contains all data values that are
> > not nonnegative integers, which includes, say, real numbers, but also includes all strings. It is
> > unclear what restricting such a datatype to 2 precision digits means. Originally, a dataRange was
> > used because this allowed one to specify, say, minInclusice and maxIncludive via nesting; with
> > mutliple facets per DatatypeRestriction this is not necessary any more.
> >
> >
> > The second point makes it possible to write DatatypeRestriction(xsd:string fractionDigits
> > "2"^^xsd:integer). Again, it is unclear whether this is a syntax error or, if not, how to interpret
> > this datatype.
> >
> > 2. Possible solution
> > --------------------
> >
> > A possible solution would be to change the definition of DatatypeRestriction in the following way:
> >
> > - Rather than taking a dataRange as an argument, we should make DatatypeRestriction take a Datatype
> > as an argument.
> > - We should specify compatibility between different datatypes and factes. For example, we would say
> > that fractionDigits could be applied only to the xsd:float datatype.
> >
> > This solution seems to be in line with the XML Schema way of handling things: if I am not mistaken,
> > in XML Schema one cannot apply an arbitrary facet to an arbitrary datatype.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Boris
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 27 February 2008 18:28:26 UTC