- From: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 17:41:03 +0100
- To: "'Evan Wallace'" <ewallace@cme.nist.gov>, "'Alan Ruttenberg'" <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Cc: "'OWL Working Group WG'" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Hello, A more detailed explanation about why complemented data ranges must be defined as they are can be found in a paper that Ian and I wrote recently. The paper is currently under submission, but you can access if from my Web page: http://www.comlab.ox.ac.uk/people/boris.motik/publications/mh08datatypes.pdf A discussion about complemented data ranges can be found in Section 3.4. I'll be very grateful for any comments about the paper; furthermore, if you have any questions about Section 3.4 or other part of the paper, I'll be happy to answer them. Regards, Boris > -----Original Message----- > From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Evan Wallace > Sent: 21 May 2008 17:07 > To: Alan Ruttenberg > Cc: OWL Working Group WG > Subject: Re: ISSUE-124 (datarange complement): The complement of a datarange is defined relative to > the whole data domain > > > > Alan Ruttenberg wrote: > > > Wouldn't the sugar be more effectively placed on ComplementOf. > > Specifically, something like: > > > > ComplementOfWithinDatatype(DatatypeRestriction( xsd:decimal > > minInclusive 35 maxExclusive 42)) > > > > Not in my view. We should reuse patterns in the language where > appropriate and this is a place where > I believe its appropriate. Hence my previous suggestion. > > With respect to the question of whether *any* change is needed: I don't > follow Boris' argument that it is > not needed and would like to have some time to look over the relevant > parts of the specs before we > summarily close the issue (i.e. let's not close it today). I had seen > this same issue crop up in a pre-WG > OWL 1.1 example, and it looked wrong then (because it used complementOf, > but appeared to mean your > ComplementOfWithinDatatype). A little more time should improve my > understanding of this issue, one > way or another. > > -Evan > > >
Received on Wednesday, 21 May 2008 16:42:35 UTC