W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > September 2008

RE: We should turn facets into URIs in the spec

From: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 19:38:51 +0100
To: <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1166AEAA0B134F3E95627313D9DED97A@wolf>


Since nobody objected, I have just changed the spec and have made constraining facets URIs. Here are the diffs:


Direct Semantics:

RDF Mapping:

XML Syntax:

The profiles didn't need updating because they don't support facets.

Michael Schneider might need to update the RDF-Based Semantics, I'm not sure.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Boris Motik
> Sent: 22 September 2008 16:32
> To: public-owl-wg@w3.org
> Subject: We should turn facets into URIs in the spec
> Hello,
> Peter has just detected an inconsistency in my resolution of ISSUE-71. The problem is that all facets
> are turned into xsd:<facet
> name>, which puts the langPattern facet into the xsd: namespace -- probably not what we want.
> Luckily, there is an easy fix to this: we should turn facets into URIs. The new XML Schema Datatypes
> document
> (http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-2/#built-in-datatypes) explicitly says that each facet is
> identified by a URI. Thus, we should
> obey this convention and adapt our spec accordingly; this will immediately resolve the mapping
> issues.
> Concretely, this means that instead of writing
>     DatatypeRestriction( xsd:integer minIncusive "10"^^xsd:integer)
> we should write
>     DatatypeRestriction( xsd:integer xsd:minIncusive "10"^^xsd:integer)
> This will require a small change to the syntax (and the XML Syntax as well). The URIs of these facets
> would be placed into the
> reserved vocabulary, which will prevent any problems with the declarations. Finally, the RDF Mapping
> would be modified to use the
> URI of the facet as is, without putting it explicitly into the xsd: namespace.
> I believe this to be a relatively low-level problem that can be treated as being editorial. Hence,
> unless anyone objects, I'd go
> ahead and make this change in the following days. Please let me know if you disagree with this
> proposal.
> Regards,
> 	Boris
Received on Wednesday, 24 September 2008 18:40:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:41:52 UTC