Re: Any objections against using xsd:anySimpleType or rdfs:Literal as the rdfs:range for OWL datatype properties?

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.

All "afaict" :) Best,

Nathan

Received on Thursday, 23 September 2010 13:00:07 UTC