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

RE: ISSUE-124 (datarange complement): The complement of a datarange is defined relative to the whole data domain

From: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 17:41:03 +0100
To: "'Evan Wallace'" <ewallace@cme.nist.gov>, "'Alan Ruttenberg'" <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Cc: "'OWL Working Group WG'" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <003501c8bb61$75b2c0d0$4012a8c0@wolf>

Hello,

A more detailed explanation about why complemented data ranges must be defined as they are can be found in a paper that Ian and I
wrote recently. The paper is currently under submission, but you can access if from my Web page:

http://www.comlab.ox.ac.uk/people/boris.motik/publications/mh08datatypes.pdf

A discussion about complemented data ranges can be found in Section 3.4.

I'll be very grateful for any comments about the paper; furthermore, if you have any questions about Section 3.4 or other part of
the paper, I'll be happy to answer them.

Regards,

	Boris

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Evan Wallace
> Sent: 21 May 2008 17:07
> To: Alan Ruttenberg
> Cc: OWL Working Group WG
> Subject: Re: ISSUE-124 (datarange complement): The complement of a datarange is defined relative to
> the whole data domain
> 
> 
> 
> Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
> 
> > Wouldn't the sugar be more effectively placed on ComplementOf.
> > Specifically, something like:
> >
> > ComplementOfWithinDatatype(DatatypeRestriction( xsd:decimal
> > minInclusive 35 maxExclusive 42))
> >
> 
> Not in my view.  We should reuse patterns in the language where
> appropriate and this is a place where
> I believe its appropriate.  Hence my previous suggestion.
> 
> With respect to the question of whether *any* change is needed: I don't
> follow Boris' argument that it is
> not needed and would like to have some time to look over the relevant
> parts of the specs before we
> summarily close the issue (i.e. let's not close it today).  I had seen
> this same issue crop up in a pre-WG
> OWL 1.1 example, and it looked wrong then (because it used complementOf,
> but appeared to mean your
> ComplementOfWithinDatatype).  A little more time should improve my
> understanding of this issue, one
> way or another.
> 
> -Evan
> 
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 21 May 2008 16:42:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 21 May 2008 16:42:35 GMT