- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 17:23:50 +0000
- To: Evan Wallace <ewallace@cme.nist.gov>
- Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
On 27 Feb 2008, at 16:09, Evan Wallace wrote: > Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: >> From: Evan Wallace <ewallace@cme.nist.gov> >> Subject: Re: Agenda for teleconference Wednesday February 27th, 2008 >> Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 14:33:24 -0500 >> >> >>> Boris' action ( documented in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ >>> public-owl-wg/2008Feb/0129.html) updated the text of >>> the structural specification document to allow >>> datatypeRestrictions only on datatypes. I am uncomfortable with >>> this new >>> constraint, although I understand this was decided at last week's >>> telecon (I was out sick). >> >> What would you prefer? >> >> The syntax restriction was put in to prevent constructs like: >> >> DatatypeRestriction(DataComplementOf >> (xsd:integer) minExclusive "1"^^xsd:integer) >> >> whose meaning is, at best, unclear. >> >> > My concern about the new constraint is that it will eliminate the > ability for communities to define their > own datatypes and then restrict those. This was certainly not the intent of this change. Of course, one could always use XML Schema, but it's nice to be able to nest restrictions. Also, it would be helpful to be able to name derived types them inside an OWL document, but I don't immediately see how to do that. > Allowing restrictions of DatatypeRestrictions would support this > without opening the full Pandora's box of DataComplementOf. I > would be comfortable with this option. [snip] I think this plus being able to name DatatypeRestrictions should be permitted. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Wednesday, 27 February 2008 17:21:45 UTC