- From: OWL <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 07:28:08 +0000 (GMT)
- To: public-owl-wg@w3.org
ISSUE-29 (owl:DataRange): REPORTED: User-defined Datatypes: owl:DataRange vs rdfs:Datatype http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/ Raised by: Bijan Parsia On product: Initially <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-dev/2006OctDec/0109.html> From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com> Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 09:09:47 -0800 Message-ID: <4575A7DB.5030401@topquadrant.com> To: public-owl-dev@w3.org All, the current OWL 1.1 to RDF Graph mapping indicates that owl:DataRanges be used to express user-defined datatypes (such as xsd:int > 18). Also, XSD facets appear to be called owl:<facet>, e.g. owl:minInclusive. 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. 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
Received on Thursday, 25 October 2007 07:28:16 UTC