RE: reverse mapping for xsd:integer vs xsd:nonNegativeInteger

Hello,

I changed the spec along these lines; here is the diff:

http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Mapping_to_RDF_Graphs&diff=8203&oldid=8201

I simplified the notation a bit: we now have POS_INT(n) that matches to any positive integer, and NN_INT(n) that matches to any
nonnegative integer. There are no other patterns that need to match a particular constant value, so this notation should be
sufficient (for now at least).

Regards,

	Boris 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Alan Ruttenberg
> Sent: 29 May 2008 05:51
> To: Boris Motik
> Cc: 'Peter F. Patel-Schneider'; public-owl-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: reverse mapping for xsd:integer vs xsd:nonNegativeInteger
> 
> 
> 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 10:23:36 UTC