Re: User-defined Datatypes: owl:DataRange vs rdfs:Datatype

Hi Holger,
>
> I am wondering why user-defined datatypes are not modeled as instances 
> of the RDF Schema class rdfs:Datatype (similar to the hack suggested 
> in the Protege 3 implementation [1]).  Without knowing the design 
> decisions that lead to the use of owl:DataRange, my naive point of 
> view would be that rdfs:Datatypes may make it more consistent with the 
> semantic web stack.  I am sure the working group had good reasons for 
> selecting owl:DataRange, but it would be useful to understand them 
> from the outside.
>
In RDF, a datatype (instance of rdfs:Datatype) and a class (instance of 
rdfs:Class) can share instances, such as the integer 42. While in OWL DL 
(and hence OWL 1.1), the datatype domain is disjoint with the object 
domain; therefore, sharing instances is not possible for an OWL DL/1.1 
datatype and an OWL DL/1.1 class.

Greetings,
Jeff

> Also, I think we should use the xsd namespace for the facet names, so 
> that they are written as xsd:minInclusive.
>
> Could anyone please clarify these issues?
>
> Thanks
> Holger
>
> PS: The family.owl linked from the OWL 1.1 web site currently appears 
> to be inconsistent with the RDF mapping spec (at least with respect to 
> the user-defined datatypes).
>
> [1] http://protege.stanford.edu/plugins/owl/xsp.html
>


-- 

Dr. Jeff Z. Pan (http://www.csd.abdn.ac.uk/~jpan/)
Department of Computing Science, The University of Aberdeen

Received on Wednesday, 6 December 2006 09:28:48 UTC