RE: Re: Encoding an incomplete date as xsd:dateTime

> On Jun 26, 2014 8:02 AM, "Antoine Zimmermann"
> <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr> wrote:
> > With these constructs, you would never be able to define the value space
> of gYear, which is disjoint from all OWL-compatible datatypes.
> [...]
> > Now, you can still use xsd:gYear if you want because OWL 2 DL processors
> do not have to reject all non-compliant ontologies. Actually, most OWL
> processors would not bother much about gYear. Besides, these restrictions
> are for OWL 2 DL ontologies but the OWL specs also specify OWL Full
> ontologies, which are all valid RDF graphs.
> Pellet supports xsd:gYear,  but as a time point,  not an interval - see:
> https://github.com/clarkparsia/pellet/blob/master/core/src/main/java/com
> /clarkparsia/pellet/datatypes/types/datetime/XSDGYear.java
> Hermit only permits the OWL-DL datatypes,  and  checks for violations.
> Fact++ and JFact only support the DL date types,  but only signal an error if
> they are asked to reason with them.

> This reinforces your point that there is not much win available
> from  using  gYear instead of an xsd:integer.

From a reasoning point of view, no. Other applications might of course be happy to know that a specific sequence of digits is a xsd:gYear (particularly validators etc.).

Best,

Lars

Received on Friday, 27 June 2014 13:59:58 UTC