W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-mmsem@w3.org > April 2007

Re: [Re: Re: [MMSEM] RDF and syntactic interoperability]]

From: Jeff Z. Pan <jpan@csd.abdn.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 21:54:07 +0100 (BST)
Message-ID: <4459.87.113.84.177.1175547247.squirrel@www.csd.abdn.ac.uk>
To: "Hausenblas, Michael" <michael.hausenblas@joanneum.at>, GaŽtan Martens <Gaetan.Martens@ugent.be>, "Danny Ayers" <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
Cc: "public-xg-mmsem@w3.org" <public-xg-mmsem@w3.org>

Dear GaŽtan, Danny, Michael and all,

> Actually OWL builds upon RDF(S) and XMLS datatyping, though there are
> some cases that cause troubles. However, IMHO the main difference is that
> in OWL-DL - which is of practical interest - datatypes and
concepts/instances
> are disjoint.

Yes, there are two main differences between OWL datatyping and RDF
datatyping:

1) As Michael mentioned, OWL distinguishes datatypes from classes and
datatype properties from object properties. RDF does not have such
distinctions.

2) Besides range axioms, OWL allows the use of datatypes in restrictions
such as allValuesFrom, someValuesFrom and value [1].

> <xsd:simpleType name="anXMLType">
> ....
> </xsd:simpleType>

> <owl:DataTypeProperty rdf="someClassValue">
> <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#SomeClass">
> <rdfs:range  rdf:resource="someXMLns:anXMLType">
> </owl:DataTypeProperty>

In OWL, anXMLType is not allowed as OWL does not support user-defined XML
Schema datatypes. More detailed discussions and solutions can be found in
the SWBPD note [2].

Greetings,
Jeff


[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-xsch-datatypes/
Received on Monday, 2 April 2007 20:54:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:21 GMT