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

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

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 05:57:25 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20080528.055725.50093410.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk
Cc: alanruttenberg@gmail.com, public-owl-wg@w3.org

This sounds correct to me.

The wording could be something like

	When parsing literals in G, literals that use XML Schema
	Datatypes derived from xsd:decimal and that are result in values
	acceptable for the pattern are parsed as if they used the
	particular datatype in the pattern, e.g., "0"^^xsd:integer is
	acceptable used when parsing a maximum cardinality restriction
	(but not when parsing an n-ary datatype declaration).  The
	dataypes allowed here are xsd:decimal, xsd:integer,
	xsd:nonPositiveInteger, xsd:long, xsd:int, xsd:short, xsd:byte,
	xsd:nonNegativeInteger, xsd:unsignedLong, xsd:unsignedInt,
	xsd:unsignedShort, xsd:unsignedByte, and xsd:positiveInteger.
	Note that using datatypes in this way is not related to using
	these datatypes as OWL dataranges.

This would be placed near the beginning of Section 3.

peter


From: "Boris Motik" <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Subject: RE: reverse mapping for xsd:integer vs xsd:nonNegativeInteger
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 09:32:13 +0100

> 
> 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 10:03:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 28 May 2008 10:03:20 GMT