W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > November 2002

Re: proposal to close Issue 5.8 Datatypes

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 21:40:37 -0500
Message-Id: <p05111705ba0348cece88@[]>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, www-webont-wg@w3.org

>5/ Cardinality restrictions in the exchange syntax for OWL will use typed
>    literals, as in
>              _:x rdf:type owl:Restriction .
>              _:x owl:onProperty ex:foo .
>              _:x owl:cardinality "5"^^xsd:decimal .

  you were strong on the phone today with this, where some people 
seemed to think going with cardinality as numerals was better for 
various reasons.  I actually have no idea which is better, but the 
numerals one would be closer to D+O (i.e. not require recoding all 
the cardinality statements and rewriting all the parsers).  Can you 
outline why you felt so strongly about this so the rest of us can 
understand the argument?
  Jim H.
p.s. Also, in your example why do you propose decimal rather than 
integer for cardinality (or positive integer)? Is this important? 
Would we insist is is any typed literal, or only the correct ones for 
Professor James Hendler				  hendler@cs.umd.edu
Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies	  301-405-2696
Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab.	  301-405-6707 (Fax)
Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742	  240-731-3822 (Cell)
Received on Thursday, 21 November 2002 21:40:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:49 UTC