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