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 19:53:30 +0100
To: "'Peter F. Patel-Schneider'" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <006b01c8c0f4$1f472a90$7212a8c0@wolf>

Hello,

I added a slightly less verbose wording; here is the diff:

http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Mapping_to_RDF_Graphs&diff=8171&oldid=8131

It seems to me that we don't need to list all combinations of the datatypes, as we can just simply refer to the usual equality of
datatypes. Please let me know if you consider this insufficient and/or unclear.

Regards,

	Boris

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Peter F. Patel-
> Schneider
> Sent: 28 May 2008 10:57
> To: boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk
> Cc: alanruttenberg@gmail.com; public-owl-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: reverse mapping for xsd:integer vs xsd:nonNegativeInteger
> 
> 
> 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 18:55:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 28 May 2008 18:55:08 GMT