- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 08:30:24 -0400
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk, public-owl-wg@w3.org
works for me. Thanks. -Alan On May 28, 2008, at 5:57 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > 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 12:31:07 UTC