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

user defined datatypes

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 13:10:04 +0300
To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <200309241310.04181.jjc@hpl.hp.com>

At the last telecon we discussed user defined datatypes form a syntactic point 
of view, based on

Two new points:

1) my syntax checker now fails (only) five of the tests, including those that 
show the at risk feature and I5.8-016, the datatype test that is not in 
conformance with S&AS - i.e. the code I wrote a few months ago does what 
Peter thinks is the right thing. I am not intending to change this at the 
moment, since this was the datum that Dan was after.

2) I have been thinking about entailments ...

In OWL Full, if http://example.org/data/type is a supported datatype then



<http://example.org/data/type> rdf:type rdf:Datatype.

On the other hand if it is not a supported datatype then this is a 

I worked from
if <aaa,x> is in D then I(aaa) is in ICEXT(I(rdfs:Datatype))

In OWL DL, this is very unclear to me.

Also, if <http://example.org/data/type> is a supported datatype what is the 
status of the test file

<http://example.org/data/type> rdf:type owl:Thing .

for OWL Lite and OWL DL?

It feels like a syntax error to me.

I wonder whether the best approach is simply to be explicitly silent on this.
We have already said:
Because there is no standard way to go from a URI reference to an XML Schema 
datatype in an XML Schema, there is no standard way to use user-defined XML 
Schema datatypes in OWL. 

what about extending that with
Other aspects of user defined datatypes, are also deliberatedly
underspecied in this recommendation, but may be clarified in
later revisions.
and then remove all tests with user defined datatypes.


Received on Wednesday, 24 September 2003 07:10:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:55 UTC