W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > May 2005

RE: Uniprot RDF in RDF Gateway

From: Geoff Chappell <gchappell@intellidimension.com>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 13:14:49 -0400
To: "'Eric Jain'" <Eric.Jain@isb-sib.ch>
Cc: <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
Message-ID: <006c01c55716$1b058210$6401a8c0@gsclaptop>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Jain [mailto:Eric.Jain@isb-sib.ch]
> Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 11:54 AM
> To: Geoff Chappell
> Cc: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Uniprot RDF in RDF Gateway
> I've been reluctant to include explicit data types in the instance data,
> because they increase the data volume considerably, and can be inferred
> from the ontology anyway (as you do). Alternatively, a query system might
> even decide to detect basic data types (number, boolean, date, string) on
> its own.

I imagined this was probably the case. It might be worth highlighting for
folks on your site, since it's not strictly legal (i.e. the value spaces of
plain literals and all of the types used -- except xsd:string as Pat Hayes
pointed out -- are disjoint). It certainly seems like an
appropriate/pragmatic approach nonetheless considering the size of the
> Regarding the date issue: Where the ontology specifies an xsd:date, you
> may
> find any of '2005-05-12' (xsd:date), '2005-05' (xsd:gYearMonth) or '2005'
> (xsd:gYear). I changed the 'date' property back to a plain literal for the
> next release, and until I find a better solution.

Yeah, it's unfortunate there isn't a meaningful common superclass of those
(since the they all describe ranges on the timeline). I suppose you could
make the range the union of the three types.

Received on Thursday, 12 May 2005 17:15:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:52:23 UTC