- From: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 09:32:13 +0100
- To: "'Alan Ruttenberg'" <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, "'OWL Working Group WG'" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Hello, This is a problem of equality between datatype constants: "1"^^xsd:integer is in fact equal to "1"^^xsd:nonNegativeInteger. Covering all possible equal lexical forms would be really hard: how about "1.0"^^xsd:decimal? Or "1"^^xsd:positiveInteger? I believe we just simply need to say that, when matching the mapping rules, we need to match them "modulo constant equality". Regards, Boris > -----Original Message----- > From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Alan Ruttenberg > Sent: 28 May 2008 04:32 > To: OWL Working Group WG > Subject: reverse mapping for xsd:integer vs xsd:nonNegativeInteger > > > In http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/mapping.html, it says: > > For the purposes of determining whether an RDF graph is an OWL DL > ontology in RDF graph form, cardinality restrictions are explicitly > allowed to use constructions like "1"^^xsd:integer so long as the > data value so encoded is a non-negative integer. > > Therefore, for backwards compatibility, should the reverse mapping > explicitly have a mapping for the (non qualified) cardinality cases > where it currently only says xsd:nonNegativeInteger? > > -Alan > >
Received on Wednesday, 28 May 2008 08:33:51 UTC