- From: Stephane Fellah <fellahst@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 15:49:32 -0400
- To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Cc: Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>, nathan@webr3.org, semantic-web@w3.org, public-lod@w3.org
- Message-ID: <AANLkTim_yo++0UwUOMKFqqn4PvOi77QZeMyVQMosiDK2@mail.gmail.com>
Sorry I made a type : please read: I think a datatype should NOT only be restricted to XML schema. Using xsd:simpleType would discard the case of using XML Literal (for example a GML encoded Geometry). Literal seems to be a safer bet. I wish to see in a future version of RDF, a mechanism to valid XML literal with an XML schema complex type or element. I think a datatype should NOT only be restricted to XML schema. I have created and used in many instances custom datatype that could not be described with XML schema: for example a value with a unit of measure ( :Box dim:length "10 cm"^^myns:measure ). Best regards Stephane Fellah On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 3:47 PM, Stephane Fellah <fellahst@gmail.com> wrote: > Using xsd:simpleType would discard the case of using XML Literal (for > example a GML encoded Geometry). Literal seems to be a safer bet. > I wish to see in a future version of RDF, a mechanism to valid XML literal > with an XML schema complex type or element. > I think a datatype should only be restricted to XML schema. I have created > and used in many instances custom datatype that could not be described with > XML schema: for example a value with a unit of measure ( :Box dim:length > "10 cm"^^myns:measure ). > > Best regards > Stephane Fellah > > > On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com > > wrote: > >> On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Martin Hepp >> <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org> wrote: >> > 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. >> >> What would "support" mean? My guess is that unaware applications >> ignore the datatype. >> >> > So I guess rdfs:Literal is the better choice for the moment. >> >> I'd probably use the DataUnionOf( xsd:float xsd:double xsd:decimal) if >> what you want to express is that you are using a numeric type. >> >> -Alan >> >> >> > >> > 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 20:54:58 UTC