- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 15:04:28 -0500 (EST)
- To: public-owl-wg@w3.org
I effected the proposal for ISSUE-29 as far as Syntax, Semantics, and Mapping are concerned. As usual changes can be found in the notes on the issue. The only substantive changes are in Mapping. peter From: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com> Subject: a proposal for owl:Datarange (and datatype facets) (ISSUE-29, ISSUE-74) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 04:26:27 -0500 (EST) > > 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 [...] > 4. In OWL Full, owl:Datarange is deprecated (and made equivalent to > rdfs:Datatype). The equivalence has to be put in the to-be-developed OWL Full semantics. > peter
Received on Wednesday, 23 January 2008 20:34:11 UTC