W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > August 2009

Re: OWL 2 dependency on XSD 1.1

From: Jie Bao <baojie@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 13:12:36 -0400
Message-ID: <b6b357670908251012x1fb6be2y3a693f062346a5f@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: sandro@w3.org, public-owl-wg@w3.org
rdf:PlainLiteral uses

XS 1.0 datatypes and facets

xs:string xs:integer xs:boolean
xs:length xs:minLength  xs:maxLength   xs:pattern  xs:enumeration

XS 1.1 facets

xs:assertions  (should be xs:assertion)
xs:lang           (should be xs:language)

On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 3:47 PM, Peter F.
Patel-Schneider<pfps@research.bell-labs.com> wrote:
> Full OWL 2 DL implementations implement a large chunk of XS 1.1
> datatypes, including many of the facets.  However, they do not implement
> *all* of XS 1.1 datatypes (e.g., QName and NOTATION) and there are many
> unsupported facets (e.g., patterns on numerics, totalDigits).
> Additionally, they neither necessarily implement nor parse XML Schema
> documents, not even just the part about XS 1.1 datatypes.
>
> Much of what OWL 2 gets from XS 1.1 datatypes is clarification.  The
> earlier versions of XS datatypes were somewhat sloppy in places.  The
> XS 1.1 datatype document makes what was informal in the earlier document
> very formal.  As OWL 2 wants this level of formality, the 1.1 document
> is a much better foundation.
>
> peter
>
>
> From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
> Subject: OWL 2 dependency on XSD 1.1
> Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 07:50:41 -0500
>
>>
>> Has anyone made an progress yet on figuring out exactly which parts of
>> the XSD 1.1 Datatypes spec OWL needs?
>>
>> I've heard some comments about how we use pretty much the entire spec.
>> Is that really true?  More to the point, how much of the spec do we NOT
>> use?  Because if we really use all of it, then OWL implementations are
>> XSD 1.1 implementations, and perhaps XSD 1.1 Datatypes would then be
>> able to proceed to PR now....!  (I'm not sure if they're willing to let
>> the Datatypes part go ahead of the Structures part, but perhaps...)
>>
>> I guess there are a few datatypes we don't use, but perhaps we could
>> implement them for these purposes.
>>
>>     -- Sandro
>>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 25 August 2009 17:13:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 25 August 2009 17:13:40 GMT