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

Sorry I made a type : please read: I think a datatype should NOT only be
restricted to XML schema.

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 NOT 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 3:47 PM, Stephane Fellah <fellahst@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>