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

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

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 08:30:24 -0400
Message-Id: <06DB445C-68A8-44A1-B637-C53CB488DCEA@gmail.com>
Cc: boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk, public-owl-wg@w3.org
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>

works for me. Thanks.
-Alan
On May 28, 2008, at 5:57 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

> 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 12:31:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 28 May 2008 12:31:09 GMT