- From: Michael Smith <msmith@clarkparsia.com>
- Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 21:49:57 -0500
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
On Thu, 2007-11-15 at 12:49 +0000, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> With Peter's e-mail, I am confident that we can have:
I would appreciate if you can confirm my understanding of the items you
list below.
> - in-line XSD datatypes with our own syntax
E.g., the approach of the member submission.
> - in-line XSD datatypes using their syntax (but probably not in RDF/XML;
> the xml literals in RDF/XML are defined via exclusive XML
> Canonicalization, that is not compatabilte with shipping XML Schema
> fragments)
So, in OWL/XML something like
...
<owl11xml:Datatype>
<xsd:SimpleType>
<xsd:restriction base="xsd:integer">
<xsd:minInclusive value="10"/>
</xsd:restriction>
</xsd:SimpleType>
<owl11xml:Datatype>
...
And in OWL RDF/XML the constraints you mention force us to redeclare the
namespace like
...
<owl:DataRange rdf:parseType="Literal">
<xsd:SimpleType xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema">
<xsd:restriction base="xsd:integer">
<xsd:minInclusive value="10"/>
</xsd:restriction>
</xsd:SimpleType>
</owl:DataRange>
...
> - external references to XSD datatypes with an explicit id attribute
> [Hence allowing an ontology to be shipped in two files, one
> containing all the datatypes]
As described at http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-xsch-datatypes/#sec-id-attr
> The only missing desiderata was external references to arbitrary XSD
> datatypes, which does depend on XML Schema's SCD doc.
> I personally think we should be prepared to cut our losses at that point.
And you were going to contact the XML Schema WG on the status of that
work, correct?
Thanks for all the helpful information.
--
Mike Smith
Clark & Parsia
Received on Friday, 16 November 2007 02:50:18 UTC