- From: Svensson, Lars <L.Svensson@dnb.de>
- Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 13:59:25 +0000
- To: Simon Spero <sesuncedu@gmail.com>, Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>
- Cc: Heiko Paulheim <heiko@informatik.uni-mannheim.de>, Jerven Bolleman <me@jerven.eu>, "semantic-web@w3.org" <semantic-web@w3.org>, Paul Houle <ontology2@gmail.com>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, Bernd Opitz <opitz.bernd@gmail.com>, Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
> On Jun 26, 2014 8:02 AM, "Antoine Zimmermann" > <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr> wrote: > > With these constructs, you would never be able to define the value space > of gYear, which is disjoint from all OWL-compatible datatypes. > [...] > > Now, you can still use xsd:gYear if you want because OWL 2 DL processors > do not have to reject all non-compliant ontologies. Actually, most OWL > processors would not bother much about gYear. Besides, these restrictions > are for OWL 2 DL ontologies but the OWL specs also specify OWL Full > ontologies, which are all valid RDF graphs. > Pellet supports xsd:gYear, but as a time point, not an interval - see: > https://github.com/clarkparsia/pellet/blob/master/core/src/main/java/com > /clarkparsia/pellet/datatypes/types/datetime/XSDGYear.java > Hermit only permits the OWL-DL datatypes, and checks for violations. > Fact++ and JFact only support the DL date types, but only signal an error if > they are asked to reason with them. > This reinforces your point that there is not much win available > from using gYear instead of an xsd:integer. From a reasoning point of view, no. Other applications might of course be happy to know that a specific sequence of digits is a xsd:gYear (particularly validators etc.). Best, Lars
Received on Friday, 27 June 2014 13:59:54 UTC