Re: Datatypes - chair's ruling on part 4 [was proposal to close issue 5.8 datatypes]

I was going to suggest that we break this point out as
a separate issue marked it postponed, for bascially
the same reasons we postponed structured datatypes...

but I think this issue about range restrictions is actually
the same issue as point 4 raises, and we already decided
to postpone it...

"The fundamental issue with integration of XML types and XML Schema
datatypes into OWL seems to be based on the fact that there do not exist
unique URIreferences for each XML Schema type."

When we closed 5.7, we were perhaps not very thorough; for
example, we didn't action the reference editor to remove
the stuff in the "Properties and Datatypes" section.
I think there's relevant text in the semantics document too.

On Wed, 2002-12-11 at 07:42, Jim Hendler wrote:
> In [1] Peter Patel-Schneider made a five part proposal to close the 
> datatyping issue.  One section of this was:
> >4/ OWL can use XML Schema non-list simple types defined at the top
> >    level of an XML Schema document and given a name, by using the URI
> >    reference constructed from the URI of the document and the local name of
> >    the simple type.  That is, if U is the URI of an XML Schema document
> >    that contains,
> >    <xsd:schema ...>
> >      <xsd:simpleType name="foo">
> >        <xsd:restriction base="integer">
> >         <xsd:minInclusive value="1700">
> >        </xsd:restriction>
> >      </xsd:simpleType>
> >      ...
> >    </xsd:schema>
> >    then the URI reference U#foo will be that datatype.
> >
> >    Implementations of OWL may choose to ignore the facets such a type.
> Although I personally think this is a good proposal, the right way to 
> do this, and something OWL needs,  I am afraid that I (very 
> reluctantly) have to rule this piece of this proposal OUT OF SCOPE 
> for WOWG based on W3C process and charter considerations.

Dan Connolly, W3C

Received on Wednesday, 11 December 2002 12:47:22 UTC