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