- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 13:53:35 +0100
- To: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: semantic-web@w3.org
On 23 Aug 2007, at 13:33, Dave Reynolds wrote: > Bijan Parsia wrote: >> On 23 Aug 2007, at 09:54, Dave Reynolds wrote: >>> Bijan Parsia wrote: >> [snipped useful stuff] >>>> That's nice. We should have a list somewhere (heck, for all I >>>> know, pellet's support is derived in part from Jena!). >>>> Does Jena also support the OWL 1.1 RDF vocabulary for defining >>>> datatypes? (Not that I'm convinced that this is, in general, a >>>> good idea). >>> >>> No, at least not yet. We're not yet convinced that such >>> replication of XSD inside OWL is appropriate, though can see some >>> benefits. >> [snip] >> Hmm. That's more than I can see, personally. The main benefits >> seems to be free use of datatype expressions (versus having to >> name them) and perhaps the "one file" thang. The latter is rather >> uninteresting to me. > > Yes, you are right. I must have been feeling too mellow when > writing that message ;-) I think our original feedback was more > robustly negative. > > The all-in-one-file is one argument and as you say is hardly exciting. Yeah, we should just ignore it, I think. > There is possibly an argument for being able to query the structure > of the data expression without having to move to a different tool > stack but I couldn't make such an argument convincingly myself. The strong use case is the need for anonymous datatype expressions. I've been in situations where I would have to coin a lot of pointless datatype names (e.g., to represent events occurring within certain intervales). >> For the former, I'd tend to prefer using fragments of XML Schema >> (although that has it's own problems). > > Reasonable. No pretty solution, really. Maybe relax-ng has some better way. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Thursday, 23 August 2007 12:52:15 UTC