W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > May 2003

RE: datatypes decision not carried out in specs?!?

From: Smith, Michael K <michael.smith@eds.com>
Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 10:31:55 -0500
Message-ID: <B8E84F4D9F65D411803500508BE3221415A8F6D8@USPLM207>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, www-webont-wg@w3.org

The Guide fix is pretty obvious.  Add

"All OWL reasoners are required to support the xsd:integer 
 and xsd:string datatypes."

?

- Mike
	
-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Connolly [mailto:connolly@w3.org] 
Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 9:01 AM
To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Subject: datatypes decision not carried out in specs?!?



I have this action from 20Mar
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Mar/0132.html

to get review by the I18N WG of what we decided; basically, from this 13Mar
message
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Mar/0087.html

[[[
1/ I propose that an OWL reasoner may choose not to support some of the OWL
   built-in datatypes or even rdf:XMLLiteral, but that it should be easy to
   determine which datatypes any OWL reasoner supports.

2/ I propose that all OWL reasoners be required to support the following
   TWO datatypes:

	xsd:integer
	xsd:string
]]]

and I'm trying to find the parts of our spec where that decision is
reflected so I can get it reviewed.

Well, our specs don't reflect it very clearly.


Guide doesn't reflect it at all:


[[[

The following datatypes are recommended for use with OWL: 

xsd:string
xsd:normalizedString
xsd:boolean
xsd:decimal
xsd:float
xsd:double
xsd:integer
xsd:nonNegativeInteger
xsd:positiveInteger
xsd:nonPositiveInteger
xsd:negativeInteger
xsd:long
xsd:int
xsd:short
xsd:byte
xsd:unsignedLong
xsd:unsignedInt
xsd:unsignedShort
xsd:unsignedByte
xsd:hexBinary
xsd:base64Binary
xsd:dateTime
xsd:time
xsd:date
xsd:gYearMonth
xsd:gYear
xsd:gMonthDay
xsd:gDay
xsd:gMonth
xsd:anyURI
xsd:token
xsd:language
xsd:NMTOKEN
xsd:Name
xsd:NCName
]]]
 -- http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/#Datatypes1

nor reference:


[[[

The following are the recommended simple built-in XML Schema datatypes for
use in OWL ontologies: 

      * The primitive datatype xsd:string, plus the following datatypes
        derived from xsd:strong: xsd:normalizedString, xsd:token,
        xsd:language, xsd:NMTOKEN, xsd:Name,and xsd:NCName.
      * The primitive datatype xsd:boolean.
      * The primitive numerical datatypes xsd:decimal, xsd:float, and
        xsd:double, plus all derived types of xsd:decimal (xsd:integer,
        xsd:positiveInteger. xsd:nonPositiveInteger,
        xsd:negativeInteger, xsd:nonNegativeInteger, xsd:long, xsd:int,
        xsd:short, xsd:byte, xsd:unsignedLong, xsd:unsignedInt,
        xsd:unsignedShort, xsd:unsignedByte)
      * The primitive time-related datatypes: xsd:dateTime, xsd:time,
        xsd:date, xsd:gYearMonth, xsd:gYear, xsd:gMonthDay, xsd:gDay,
        and xsd:gMonth.
      * The primitive datatypes xsd:hexBinary, xsd:base64Binary, and
        xsd:anyURI.
]]]
  -- http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#Datatype


semantics makes a one-sentence mention of it, *after* listing all the other
types:

[[[
The following XML Schema datatypes can be used in OWL by means of the XML
Schema canonical URI reference for the datatype,
http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#name, where name is the local name of the
datatype:xsd:string, xsd:boolean, xsd:decimal, xsd:float, xsd:double,
xsd:dateTime, xsd:time, xsd:date, xsd:gYearMonth, xsd:gYear, xsd:gMonthDay,
xsd:gDay, xsd:gMonth, xsd:hexBinary, xsd:base64Binary, xsd:anyURI,
xsd:normalizedString, xsd:token, xsd:language, xsd:NMTOKEN, xsd:Name,
xsd:NCName, xsd:integer, xsd:nonPositiveInteger, xsd:negativeInteger,
xsd:long, xsd:int, xsd:short, xsd:byte, xsd:nonNegativeInteger,
xsd:unsignedLong, xsd:unsignedInt, xsd:unsignedShort, xsd:unsignedByte and
xsd:positiveInteger. OWL also uses rdfs:Literal and can use rdf:XMLLiteral.
OWL tools need only implement the datatypes xsd:integer and xsd:string. ]]]
 -- http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/syntax.html#owl_built_in_datatypes

What does "OWL tools" mean, anyway?

I don't see any relevant tests.

And as I mentioned, the issues list isn't up to date on this.
  http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#I5.26-OWLDLSyntax

So we seemed to decide one thing, but we actually asked the community to
review something else.

I'm not sure what to do here.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 1 May 2003 14:32:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:00 GMT