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

Re: ISSUE-95 (Datatype-facet compatibility in DatatypeRestriction): No compatibility restrictions between the datatype being restricted and the facets in the DatatypeRestriction construct

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 16:35:53 +0100
Message-ID: <4794BBD9.5080405@w3.org>
To: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>


OWL Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> 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.
> 

Just checked for the records and this is correct. Although it is, in the 
case of the XML Schema, slightly more convoluted:-(. Eg, I looked up 
minExclusive:

http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xmlschema-2-20041028/#rf-minExclusive

and it says:

[[[
[Definition:]   minExclusive is the ·exclusive lower bound· of the 
·value space· for a datatype with the ·ordered· property. ...
]]]

and then one can find the definition of 'ordered property' and then 
check whether a specific datatype has this property or not.

OWL1.1 does not necessarily have to follow the same structure, though.

Ivan


> Regards,
> 
> 	Boris
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf



Received on Monday, 21 January 2008 15:35:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 21 January 2008 15:35:59 GMT