- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 04:26:27 -0500 (EST)
- To: public-owl-wg@w3.org
Here is a proposal for how to proceed on issues 29 and 74.
1. OWL datatypes are RDF datatypes, as in
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#dtype_interp and
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#section-Datatypes, and thus not
necessarily XML Schema 1.0 datatypes (but it may be that RDF
datatypes conform with XML Schema 1.1 datatypes).
2. OWL also has complex data ranges, e.g., data one-of, data complement,
and facet-restricted data ranges, which are not necessarily RDF
datatypes (because they need not have a URI).
3. In OWL Full
a) complex data ranges (and datatypes) are instances of rdf:Datatype,
which is OK because not all instances of rdf:Datatype need be RDF
datatypes (from RDF Semantics
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#dtype_interp);
and
b) facets in facet-restricted data ranges use the XML Schema URLs,
which should be OK as far as the XML Schema WG is concerned, but
probably needs to be cleared with them.
4. In OWL Full, owl:Datarange is deprecated (and made equivalent to
rdfs:Datatype).
peter
Received on Monday, 7 January 2008 09:51:40 UTC