- From: Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
- Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 20:51:17 +0200
- To: nathan@webr3.org, semantic-web@w3.org, public-lod@w3.org
- Cc: Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
NB: It seems that OWL 2 supports DataUnionOf( xsd:float xsd:decimal ) The question is how broadly current apps and repositories already support OWL 2, in particular "at Web scale", outside of small, controlled environments. So I guess rdfs:Literal is the better choice for the moment. Martin On 23.09.2010, at 20:21, Martin Hepp wrote: > Hi all: > Thanks! So I understand that for an owl:DatatypeProperty that may > hold xsd:float, xsd:integer, xsd:int, xsd:double, or xsd:decimal > values, the simplest solution is rdfs:Literal. > > Is that correct? > > xsd:decimal would include xsd:integer and xsd:int (?), but there is > no standard datatype that defines the union of float/double/decimal. > > Any other solutions? > > Best > > Martin > > > On 23.09.2010, at 14:59, Nathan wrote: > >> Martin Hepp wrote: >>> Dear all: >>> Are there any theoretical or practical problems caused by defining >>> the range of an owl:DatatypeProperty as >>> http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#anySimpleType >> >> RDF Semantics has a good discussion on this at: >> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#dtype_interp >> >> note that: >> "The other built-in XML Schema datatypes are unsuitable for various >> reasons, and SHOULD NOT be used: xsd:duration does not have a well- >> defined value space (this may be corrected in later revisions of >> XML Schema datatypes, in which case the revised datatype would be >> suitable for use in RDF datatyping); xsd:QName and xsd:ENTITY >> require an enclosing XML document context; xsd:ID and xsd:IDREF are >> for cross references within an XML document; xsd:NOTATION is not >> intended for direct use; xsd:IDREFS, xsd:ENTITIES and xsd:NMTOKENS >> are sequence-valued datatypes which do not fit the RDF datatype >> model." >> >> Because a range of xsd:anySimpleType effectively includes/allows >> the use of xsd:duration and the aforementioned then it may not be >> the best range. >> >> All "afaict" :) Best, >> >> Nathan >> > >
Received on Thursday, 23 September 2010 18:52:19 UTC