Re: a proposal for owl:Datarange (and datatype facets) (ISSUE-29, ISSUE-74)

Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> Here is a proposal for how to proceed on issues 29 and 74.  
> 
> 1. OWL datatypes are RDF datatypes, as in
>    http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#dtype_interp and
>    http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#section-Datatypes, and thus not
>    necessarily XML Schema 1.0 datatypes (but it may be that RDF
>    datatypes conform with XML Schema 1.1 datatypes).
>    
> 2. OWL also has complex data ranges, e.g., data one-of, data complement,
>    and facet-restricted data ranges, which are not necessarily RDF
>    datatypes (because they need not have a URI).
> 
> 3. In OWL Full
>    a) complex data ranges (and datatypes) are instances of rdf:Datatype,
>       which is OK because not all instances of rdf:Datatype need be RDF
>       datatypes (from RDF Semantics
>       http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#dtype_interp); 

I checked this, and found the following explicit permission for this move:
[[
Notice that this is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition; it 
allows the class I(rdfs:Datatype) to contain other datatypes.
]]
Typo: %s/rdf:Datatype/rdfs:Datatype/g


>       and 
>    b) facets in facet-restricted data ranges use the XML Schema URLs,
>       which should be OK as far as the XML Schema WG is concerned, but
>       probably needs to be cleared with them.
> 
> 4. In OWL Full, owl:Datarange is deprecated (and made equivalent to
>    rdfs:Datatype).
> 
> peter
> 

I am OK with this.

Jeremy