- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 17:48:32 -0500 (EST)
- To: msmith@clarkparsia.com
- Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
From: Michael Smith <msmith@clarkparsia.com> Subject: Re: Concern about limiting allowed dataranges in DatatypeRestriction (for ACTION-83) Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 17:48:48 -0500 > > > On Wed, 2008-02-06 at 16:19 -0500, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > > Although the nesting does not add expressive power, I would prefer that > > the nested syntax also be allowed, in part because this would mirror XML > > Schema datatypes (which has a notion of the underlying datatype) and in > > part because it would pave the way for sharing parts of data range > > constructs. > > Can you elaborate on "sharing parts of data range constructs" ? This > seems to require naming dataranges, which the current syntax doesn't > allow. Yes, but there are proposals to allow this, at least in the form of using external XML Schema datatype definitions, which could be of this form. > Thanks, > -- > Mike Smith > > Clark & Parsia peter
Received on Wednesday, 6 February 2008 22:51:49 UTC