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

Using xsd:simpleType would discard the case of using XML Literal (for
example a GML encoded Geometry). Literal seems to be a safer bet.
I wish to see in a future version of RDF, a mechanism to valid XML literal
with an XML schema complex type or element.
I think a datatype should only be restricted to XML schema. I have created
and used in many instances custom datatype that could not be described with
XML schema: for example a value with a unit of measure  ( :Box dim:length
"10 cm"^^myns:measure ).

Best regards
Stephane Fellah

On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Alan Ruttenberg
<alanruttenberg@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Martin Hepp
> <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org> wrote:
> > NB:
> >
> > It seems that OWL 2 supports
> >
> > DataUnionOf( xsd:float xsd:decimal )
> >
> > The question is how broadly current apps and repositories already support
> > OWL 2, in particular "at Web scale", outside of small, controlled
> > environments.
>
> What would "support" mean? My guess is that unaware applications
> ignore the datatype.
>
> > So I guess rdfs:Literal is the better choice for the moment.
>
> I'd probably use the DataUnionOf( xsd:float xsd:double xsd:decimal) if
> what you want to express is that you are using a numeric type.
>
> -Alan
>
>
> >
> > Martin
> >
> >
> > On 23.09.2010, at 20:21, Martin Hepp wrote:
> >
> >> Hi all:
> >> Thanks! So I understand that for an owl:DatatypeProperty that may hold
> >> xsd:float, xsd:integer, xsd:int, xsd:double, or xsd:decimal values, the
> >> simplest solution is rdfs:Literal.
> >>
> >> Is that correct?
> >>
> >> xsd:decimal would include xsd:integer and xsd:int (?), but there is no
> >> standard datatype that defines the union of float/double/decimal.
> >>
> >> Any other solutions?
> >>
> >> Best
> >>
> >> Martin
> >>
> >>
> >> On 23.09.2010, at 14:59, Nathan wrote:
> >>
> >>> 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
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>