- From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
- Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 15:49:28 -0500
- To: "Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@openhealth.org>, <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Jonathan, In our work on dynamic composition of web services using semantics, we've really had to face this issue again and again -- we need to go from semantic constructs (typically an instance of a class and its associated properties) to an XML data structure -- I've become convinced this is another one of those problems thta looks easy if you're mainly looking at one aspect of it, but when you get into details, it looks like a very general purpose mechanism, more complex than what you propose, will be both needed and desired. I also worry that this is really something that RDF Core should do (or not do) and for us to have a owl-specific solution makes me nervous w/respect to the interaction of OWL and RDF (particularly, I think these complex types will be instantiated in instances, but the instances typically would use the RDF as opposed to OWL MT in general) I think I agree w/Dan that we should Postpone this issue, but I'd sure like to see it become one of the foci of any future "semantic web architecture" group - because a solution is very necessary if our stuff is going to be used in a service context (and probably many others) -Jim H. At 10:29 PM -0500 11/5/02, Jonathan Borden wrote: >I would like to propose a partial yet relatively simple and interim solution >to the issue of Structured Datatypes. A full solution would involve >'grafting' the OWL class hierarchy onto the XML Schema type system i.e. an >XML Schema type is considered a first class OWL class, and an OWL reasoner >understands XML Schema type derivation composition etc. > >For the interim I propose when rdfs:range restrictions on >owl:DatatypeProperty classes are URIs that identify XML datatypes (leaving >alone for the moment the question about how one associates a URI with an XML >datatype) that the lexical value of the owl:DatatypeProperty be an RDF >datatype conforming to the syntax of rdf:XMLLiteral and that this fragment >of XML be valid with respect to the particular XML datatype (e.g. XML Schema >particle) > >For example suppose the XML Schema particle > >< xsd:complexType name =" xType " id="xType"> > < xsd:sequence > > < xsd:element name ="a" type =" xsd:int " minOccurs =" 0 " /> > < xsd:element name ="b" type =" xsd:string " minOccurs =" 0 " /> > </ xsd:sequence > ></ xsd:complexType > > >then (modulo base URIs) > ><owl:DatatypeProperty rdf:ID="xDTprop"> > <rdfs:range rdf:resource="#xType"/> ></owl:DatatypeProperty> > >and > ><rdf:Description rdf:ID="foo"> > <ex:xDTprop rdf:parseType="Literal"> > <a>123</a> > <b>asdaasd</b> > </ex:xDTprop> ></rdf:Description> > >By this mechanism fragments of XML such as "<a>1234</a><b>asdasd</b>" which >are valid w.r.t the type "#xType" and are considered individuals/members of >the class "#xDTprop" > >Jonathan -- Professor James Hendler hendler@cs.umd.edu Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies 301-405-2696 Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab. 301-405-6707 (Fax) Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 240-731-3822 (Cell) http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler
Received on Wednesday, 6 November 2002 15:49:45 UTC