Hi Pat:
Apologies for the delay!
Well, you could define your own datatype which is the union of
these, in the required sense. That might be generally useful in any
case, and might get used more widely if you were to publicize it.
I am a bit concerned that this will hamper the ability of cu
On Sep 23, 2010, at 1:21 PM, 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
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
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
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Martin Hepp
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.
Wha
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.
So I guess rdfs:Literal is the better choice for the moment.
Mar
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 dataty
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 8:25 AM, 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
>
> or
>
> http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Literal
rdfs:Litera
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:
"Th
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
or
http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Literal
?
I think both should be valid (and are useful) in OWL DL ontologies,
but
10 matches
Mail list logo
