- From: Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr>
- Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2011 11:28:52 +0200
- To: "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
Hi again, while I am at it, I was wondering whether our RDF ontology is also compliant with other profiles of OWL2. Recall that we are considering for the moment OWL2-RL, which can be implemented on top of a rule engine. Another interesting profile is OWL2-QL, which can be implemented on top of a relational database, which I think is a very nice feature. The *only* thing that prevents us from being compliant with OWL2-QL (in addition to OWL2-RL) is that we are using the datatype xsd:double (supported in the latter, but not the former -- no Felix, don't ask me...). However, OWL2-QL supports xsd:decimal (which is also supported by other profiles). Note that we don't lose semantics: the value space of xsd:decimal is a superset as xsd:double, as xsd:decimal has no size limit. However, and this is the bothering part, the lexical space of xsd:decimal does not contain the lexical space of xsd:double, because xsd:decimal does not support 'exponent' notation, like "1.2e-3", you have to write "0.0012"(personal opinion: we can live with that!). I see several options here: a) we don't care about OWL2-QL, and leave things as they are. b) we only replace xsd:double by xsd:decimal in the RDF only, and document it, arguing that we don't lose semantics, and gain OWL2-QL compliance ; but we keep the definitions of the properties as is. Easier from an editorial point of view, but a bit awkward. c) we replace all mentions to 'double' by 'decimal' in the ontology document. Note that we don't have to change the API document: WebIDL has its own datatypes, and double is the best match to either xsd:double or xsd:decimal pa
Received on Wednesday, 6 April 2011 09:29:17 UTC