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: Thu, 29 May 2008 00:51:08 -0400
Cc: "'Peter F. Patel-Schneider'" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <508EC746-5846-4C31-95A9-D4C938A81977@gmail.com>
To: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>

I wonder if it would be better to not explicitly mention  
xsd:nonNegativeInteger in the mapping rules and instead do something  
like this:

Instead of writing

_:x owl:maxQualifiedCardinality "n"^^xsd:nonNegativeInteger

write:

_:x owl:maxQualifiedCardinality  XSDL(n, integer > 1)

And then explain that XSDL(n, integer > 1) is any xml schema datatype  
(from a limited set that Peter enumerated) literal whose value is an  
integer > 1.

-Alan

http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#datatype

On May 28, 2008, at 2:53 PM, Boris Motik wrote:

> 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 Thursday, 29 May 2008 04:51:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 29 May 2008 04:51:49 GMT