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

RE: reverse mapping for xsd:integer vs xsd:nonNegativeInteger

From: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 09:32:13 +0100
To: "'Alan Ruttenberg'" <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, "'OWL Working Group WG'" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <001301c8c09d$54104510$7212a8c0@wolf>

Hello,

This is a problem of equality between datatype constants: "1"^^xsd:integer is in fact equal to "1"^^xsd:nonNegativeInteger. Covering
all possible equal lexical forms would be really hard: how about "1.0"^^xsd:decimal? Or "1"^^xsd:positiveInteger?

I believe we just simply need to say that, when matching the mapping rules, we need to match them "modulo constant equality".

Regards,

	Boris

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Alan Ruttenberg
> Sent: 28 May 2008 04:32
> To: OWL Working Group WG
> Subject: reverse mapping for xsd:integer vs xsd:nonNegativeInteger
> 
> 
> In http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/mapping.html, it says:
> 
> For the purposes of determining whether an RDF graph is an OWL DL
> ontology in RDF graph form, cardinality restrictions are explicitly
> allowed to use constructions like "1"^^xsd:integer so long as the
> data value so encoded is a non-negative integer.
> 
> Therefore, for backwards compatibility, should the reverse mapping
> explicitly have a mapping for the (non qualified) cardinality cases
> where it currently only says xsd:nonNegativeInteger?
> 
> -Alan
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 28 May 2008 08:33:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 28 May 2008 08:33:53 GMT