- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 05:57:25 -0400 (EDT)
- To: boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk
- Cc: alanruttenberg@gmail.com, public-owl-wg@w3.org
This sounds correct to me. The wording could be something like When parsing literals in G, literals that use XML Schema Datatypes derived from xsd:decimal and that are result in values acceptable for the pattern are parsed as if they used the particular datatype in the pattern, e.g., "0"^^xsd:integer is acceptable used when parsing a maximum cardinality restriction (but not when parsing an n-ary datatype declaration). The dataypes allowed here are xsd:decimal, xsd:integer, xsd:nonPositiveInteger, xsd:long, xsd:int, xsd:short, xsd:byte, xsd:nonNegativeInteger, xsd:unsignedLong, xsd:unsignedInt, xsd:unsignedShort, xsd:unsignedByte, and xsd:positiveInteger. Note that using datatypes in this way is not related to using these datatypes as OWL dataranges. This would be placed near the beginning of Section 3. peter From: "Boris Motik" <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk> Subject: RE: reverse mapping for xsd:integer vs xsd:nonNegativeInteger Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 09:32:13 +0100 > > 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 10:03:19 UTC