Re: Proposal for adding new datatypes from XSD 1.1 (ISSUE-66)

Hi Richard,
On May 2, 2012, at 06:16, Richard Cyganiak wrote:

> On 2 May 2012, at 10:33, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>> I think that it would be best if RDF and OWL used the same list of acceptable datatypes.
> 
> See the summary table comparing RDF/OWL2/RIF/SPARQL datatypes here:
> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/XSD_Datatypes
> 
> RDF 1.0 allows many types that OWL2 doesn't allow. I don't think that removing datatypes in RDF 1.1 that were allowed in RDF 1.0 is an option, so using the same list for RFD 1.1 and OWL2 doesn't seem to be an option.
> 
> The proposal is to allow everything in RDF 1.1 that is already allowed in either of RDF 1.0, SPARQL, OWL2, or RIF.
> 
> (xsd:precisionDecimal is the only new XSD 1.1 type that shows up on neither of these lists and hence isn't included in the proposal.)

The 2004 RDF Concepts, section 5, notes that, "Certain XML Schema built-in datatypes are not suitable for use within RDF." but I can't see why xsd:precisionDecimal would fall into that category.

So, why not include xsd:precisionDecimal as well?  I see no harm in that.

Regards,
Dave


> 
> Best,
> Richard
> 
> 
>> 
>> (By the way, the OWL WG has been dormant waiting for XSD 1.1 to finalize, so there is a bit of work for that WG to do as well.)
>> 
>> pete
>> 
>> 
>> On 05/01/2012 08:57 AM, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
>>> Dear all,
>>> 
>>> XSD 1.1 has added a number of new datatypes, and revised some of the existing ones. XSD 1.1 is now a W3C Recommendation. ISSUE-66 asks the question whether to add the new types to the list of XSD types allowed in RDF.
>>> 
>>> Alex has previously analysed the changes in XSD 1.1 from an RDF point of view:
>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012Feb/0039.html
>>> 
>>> I fully concur with his findings and recommendations, and hence propose:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> PROPOSAL: Resolve ISSUE-66 by adding xsd:duration, xsd:dayTimeDuration, xsd:yearMonthDuration and xsd:dateTimeStamp to the table of allowed XSD types in RDF Concepts ED Section 5.1
>>> 
>>> 
>>> (RDF Semantics has a redundant list of the same types; this also needs to be changed accordingly, or removed in favour of normatively referencing RDF Concepts.)
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> Richard
>> 
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 2 May 2012 12:18:33 UTC