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: Bob Ferris <zazi@elbklang.net>
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 17:06:33 +0200
Message-ID: <4C9B6CF9.4000205@elbklang.net>
To: semantic-web@w3.org
Am 23.09.2010 14:59, schrieb Nathan:
> 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.

I am a bit confused now, does this mean that a property with a range of 
xsd:duration can't be a owl:DatatypeProperty? (e.g., it's a fundamental 
datatype for signal processing modellings)


Received on Thursday, 23 September 2010 15:07:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 07:42:22 UTC