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: Thu, 29 May 2008 13:43:21 +0100
To: "'Alan Ruttenberg'" <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, "'Michael Schneider'" <schneid@fzi.de>
Cc: "'Peter F. Patel-Schneider'" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <004201c8c189$9439dec0$7212a8c0@wolf>

Hello,

We use the term "constant" throughout the spec in all other places, cf. http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Syntax#Constants. 

Regards,

	Boris

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alan Ruttenberg [mailto:alanruttenberg@gmail.com]
> Sent: 29 May 2008 13:20
> To: Michael Schneider
> Cc: Boris Motik; Peter F. Patel-Schneider; public-owl-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: reverse mapping for xsd:integer vs xsd:nonNegativeInteger
> 
> 
> On May 29, 2008, at 6:48 AM, Michael Schneider wrote:
> 
> > @Alan: Good idea!
> >
> > This also leads to a somewhat better alignment between OWL DL and
> > OWL Full:
> > In OWL 1 Full, the semantic conditions for cardinality restrictions
> > included
> > statements like
> >
> >   "y is a non-negative integer"
> >
> > I was always a bit unhappy with this, because I thought that this
> > "sloppy"
> > formulation does not map to concrete triples. But now it looks
> > reasonable to
> > me to just keep it in this form, and understand it in the way
> > analog to what
> > Boris just put into the DL spec. That's more flexible, and it even
> > allows to
> > use custom datatypes, which provide the ability to express non-
> > negative
> > numbers. (I now suspect that it was always meant this way in OWL
> > Full.)
> 
> I'm not sure that we want to allow custom datatypes. This is parsing
> we're talking about, and I worry that might be too high a burden to
> expect parsers to be aware of the full xml schema datatype system.
> That's why I think  that the set of datatypes should be explicitly
> bounded in the parsing document, as Peter suggested. Doing so makes
> it very clear what a parser writer needs to know about. Boris doesn't
> like the verbosity of that, I'm assuming. How about referring to
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#built-in-datatypes and saying that
> any built-in datatype that is integer or a subtype is valid.
> 
> Also, Boris, you use the term "constant" to describe these.
> "following notation is used to denote parts of the patterns that are
> matched to constants with integer value". It would be more precise to
> use the phrase - these are "datatype literals", or "xml schema
> datatype literals".
> 
> -Alan
> 
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Michael
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-
> >> request@w3.org]
> >> On Behalf Of Boris Motik
> >> Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 12:22 PM
> >> To: 'Alan Ruttenberg'
> >> Cc: 'Peter F. Patel-Schneider'; public-owl-wg@w3.org
> >> Subject: RE: reverse mapping for xsd:integer vs
> >> xsd:nonNegativeInteger
> >>
> >>
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> I changed the spec along these lines; here is the diff:
> >>
> >> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?
> >> title=Mapping_to_RDF_Graphs&di
> >> ff=8203&oldid=8201
> >>
> >> I simplified the notation a bit: we now have POS_INT(n) that
> >> matches to
> >> any positive integer, and NN_INT(n) that matches to any
> >> nonnegative integer. There are no other patterns that need to match a
> >> particular constant value, so this notation should be
> >> sufficient (for now at least).
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> 	Boris
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-
> >> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Alan Ruttenberg
> >>> Sent: 29 May 2008 05:51
> >>> To: Boris Motik
> >>> Cc: 'Peter F. Patel-Schneider'; public-owl-wg@w3.org
> >>> Subject: Re: reverse mapping for xsd:integer vs
> >>> xsd:nonNegativeInteger
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 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&di
> >> ff=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 12:45:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 29 May 2008 12:45:21 GMT