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

On May 1, Dan Connolly writes:
> 
> 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.

Conformance w.r.t. datatypes is discussed by test in Section
4.2.2. The net result is that a consistency checker can be conformant
without supporting *any* datatypes.

Ian



> 
> 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 15:00:06 UTC