- From: Kenichi Taniuchi <ktaniuchi@tari.toshiba.com>
- Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 17:18:47 -0400
- To: Geoff Chappell <geoff@sover.net>
- CC: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
Thanks a lot! I thought the XML format is: <owl:DatatypeProperty rdf:ID="myproperty"> <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#MyClass"/> <rdfs:range> <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="&xsd;integer"> <xsd:maxInclusive rdf:datatype="&xsd;integer">10</xsd:maxInclusive> <xsd:minInclusive rdf:datatype="&xsd;integer">1</xsd:minInclusive> </rdfs:subClassOf> </rdfs:range> </owl:DatatypeProperty> Is this correct? Thanks, Kenichi Geoff Chappell wrote: > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: www-rdf-logic-request@w3.org [mailto:www-rdf-logic-request@w3.org] >>On Behalf Of Kenichi Taniuchi >>Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 7:59 PM >>To: www-rdf-logic@w3.org >>Subject: How to add the constraining facets of XML schema. >> >> >>This question would be basic,,, >> >> > >You'd think so, wouldn't you? ;-) > > > >>I would like to make sure if I can add some additional restriction for >>the RDF Datatypes. >>For example: >> >><owl:DatatypeProperty rdf:ID="myproperty"> >><rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#MyClass"/> >><rdfs:range rdf:resource="&xsd;integer"/> >></owl:DatatypeProperty> >> >>How can I add "maxInclusive" and "minInclusive" for the property ? >> >> > >There's a good doc about xml datatypes and rdf at: > > http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-xsch-datatypes/ > >Unfortunately, it doesn't offer an rdf-only solution. > >In my own work I've done things like this: > >:myproperty a owl:DatatypeProperty; > rdfs:domain :MyClass; > rdfs:range [rdfs:subClassOf xsd:integer; > xsd:maxInclusive "10"^^xsd:integer; > xsd:minInclusive "1"^^xsd:integer] > > >i.e. I create a derived datatype with appropriate facet restrictions as >needed. Most systems will likely not interpret the facets as meaningful, but >they should at least respect the base type. I usually use the base type on >actual values - e.g.: > > :x :myproperty "5"^^xsd:integer > >rather than naming the derived type and using that. > >I haven't seen this method used in the wild, so I gather it's not a >wide-spread practice. Anyone else do anything like this? Or see reasons not >to? > > > >>Kenichi >> >> > >Geoff Chappell > > > > > > > > >
Received on Monday, 20 June 2005 21:18:58 UTC