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