W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > September 2010

Re: Any objections against using xsd:anySimpleType or rdfs:Literal as the rdfs:range for OWL datatype properties?

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 13:59:00 +0100
Message-ID: <4C9B4F14.60400@webr3.org>
To: Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
CC: semantic-web@w3.org, public-lod@w3.org
Martin Hepp wrote:
> Dear all:
> 
> Are there any theoretical or practical problems caused by defining the 
> range of an owl:DatatypeProperty as
> 
>  http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#anySimpleType

RDF Semantics has a good discussion on this at:
   http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#dtype_interp

note that:
"The other built-in XML Schema datatypes are unsuitable for various 
reasons, and SHOULD NOT be used: xsd:duration does not have a 
well-defined value space (this may be corrected in later revisions of 
XML Schema datatypes, in which case the revised datatype would be 
suitable for use in RDF datatyping); xsd:QName and xsd:ENTITY require an 
enclosing XML document context; xsd:ID and xsd:IDREF are for cross 
references within an XML document; xsd:NOTATION is not intended for 
direct use; xsd:IDREFS, xsd:ENTITIES and xsd:NMTOKENS are 
sequence-valued datatypes which do not fit the RDF datatype model."

Because a range of xsd:anySimpleType effectively includes/allows the use 
of xsd:duration and the aforementioned then it may not be the best range.

All "afaict" :) Best,

Nathan
Received on Thursday, 23 September 2010 14:00:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 21:45:38 GMT