- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 00:51:08 -0400
- To: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Cc: "'Peter F. Patel-Schneider'" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
I wonder if it would be better to not explicitly mention xsd:nonNegativeInteger in the mapping rules and instead do something like this: Instead of writing _:x owl:maxQualifiedCardinality "n"^^xsd:nonNegativeInteger write: _:x owl:maxQualifiedCardinality XSDL(n, integer > 1) And then explain that XSDL(n, integer > 1) is any xml schema datatype (from a limited set that Peter enumerated) literal whose value is an integer > 1. -Alan http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#datatype On May 28, 2008, at 2:53 PM, Boris Motik wrote: > Hello, > > I added a slightly less verbose wording; here is the diff: > > http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Mapping_to_RDF_Graphs&diff=8171&oldid=8131 > > It seems to me that we don't need to list all combinations of the > datatypes, as we can just simply refer to the usual equality of > datatypes. Please let me know if you consider this insufficient and/ > or unclear. > > Regards, > > Boris > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org >> ] On Behalf Of Peter F. Patel- >> Schneider >> Sent: 28 May 2008 10:57 >> To: boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk >> Cc: alanruttenberg@gmail.com; public-owl-wg@w3.org >> Subject: Re: reverse mapping for xsd:integer vs >> xsd:nonNegativeInteger >> >> >> 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 Thursday, 29 May 2008 04:51:46 UTC