W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > July 2008

Re: ISSUE-31 Proposal to resolve

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 21:18:08 +0100
Message-Id: <593F7F5F-D7FD-449F-8415-69DB761B19D3@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: "OWL 1.1" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
To: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>

On Jul 2, 2008, at 10:54 AM, Ian Horrocks wrote:

> Isn't this issue moot now that we have defined our own OWL detatype  
> restriction syntax?

No. In fact, if you look at the body, quite the opposite (since it  
was raised in light of already having the restriction syntax). I  
believe, however, we had a proposal for the URIs (e.g., the daml+oil  
solution). I don't know what happened afterwards.

> This being the case we could close the issue without any action.

There is a proposal on the table:

	http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Talk:Syntax#Proposed_Datatype_Edit

As an addition to Syntax#Data_Ranges:

Complex data ranges can be defined in XML Schema documents and reused  
within OWL 1.1 documents. In such cases, the datatypeURI represents a  
specific element in the XML Schema using a shorthand pointer from the  
XPointer Framework. At present, this requires the XML Schema  
definition to include an @id attribute. Implementations must support  
XML Schema definitions that are expressible using OWL 1.1 data range  
constructors.
MikeSmith 07:31, 26 November 2007 (EST)

Cheers,

Bijan.
Received on Tuesday, 8 July 2008 20:18:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:05 UTC