ISSUE-29

owl:DataRange

RESOLVED: User-defined Datatypes: owl:DataRange vs rdfs:Datatype

State:

CLOSED

Product:

Raised by:

Bijan Parsia

Opened on:

2007-10-25

Description:

the current OWL 1.1 to RDF Graph mapping indicates that owl:DataRanges 
be used to express user-defined datatypes (such as xsd:int > 18). 

Why are user-defined datatypes are not modeled as instances 
of the RDF Schema class rdfs:Datatype (similar to the hack suggested in 
the Protege 3 implementation [1]).  Use of rdfs:Datatypes may make it more consistent with the semantic web stack.  


[1] http://protege.stanford.edu/plugins/owl/xsp.html

Related Actions Items:

• ACTION-27 on Jeremy Carroll to Show why rdfs:datatype and owl:DataRange are different. - due 2007-11-21, closed
• ACTION-28 on Jeremy Carroll to Edit Issue 29 to deal with RDFS data type - due 2007-11-21, closed

Related emails:

1. Re: OWL Full Features in QRG (from ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk on 2009-05-27)
2. Re: OWL Full Features in QRG (from hendler@cs.rpi.edu on 2009-05-26)
3. Re: OWL Full Features in QRG (from ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk on 2009-05-25)
4. Re: OWL Full Features in QRG (from baojie@gmail.com on 2009-05-22)
5. RESOLVED ISSUE-29 (owl:Datatype deprecated) (from pfps@research.bell-labs.com on 2008-01-23)
6. Re: ISSUE-29 and ISSUE-74 status and Re: Agenda for teleconference Wednesday January 23rd, 2008 (from ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk on 2008-01-23)
7. ISSUE-29 and ISSUE-74 status and Re: Agenda for teleconference Wednesday January 23rd, 2008 (from pfps@research.bell-labs.com on 2008-01-23)
8. ISSUE-29: Situation of owl:DataRange in OWL-Full (from schneid@fzi.de on 2008-01-22)
9. Re: Consensus on ISSUE-73 (was Re: Universal Property) (from hendler@cs.rpi.edu on 2008-01-18)
10. Re: Consensus on ISSUE-73 (was Re: Universal Property) (from alanruttenberg@gmail.com on 2008-01-18)
11. Re: Consensus on ISSUE-73 (was Re: Universal Property) (from jjc@hpl.hp.com on 2008-01-18)
12. Re: ISSUE-29 datarange and plain literals with language tags (from jjc@hpl.hp.com on 2008-01-17)
13. Re: ISSUE-29 datarange and plain literals with language tags (from pfps@research.bell-labs.com on 2008-01-16)
14. ISSUE-29 datarange and plain literals with language tags (from jjc@hpl.hp.com on 2008-01-16)
15. Re: a proposal for owl:Datarange (and datatype facets) (ISSUE-29, ISSUE-74) (from jjc@hpl.hp.com on 2008-01-14)
16. RE: Proposal to close ISSUE-73 (was Re: My ACTION-64 (to propose closing ISSUE-29)) (from boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk on 2008-01-11)
17. Re: My ACTION-64 (to propose closing ISSUE-29) (from pfps@research.bell-labs.com on 2008-01-10)
18. My ACTION-64 (to propose closing ISSUE-29) (from bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk on 2008-01-10)
19. a proposal for owl:Datarange (and datatype facets) (ISSUE-29, ISSUE-74) (from pfps@research.bell-labs.com on 2008-01-07)
20. two comments on XML Schema, RDF, and OWL datatypes (ISSUE-29) (from pfps@research.bell-labs.com on 2008-01-02)
21. Differences between rdfs:Datatype vs owl:DataRange (from jjc@hpl.hp.com on 2007-11-27)
22. ACTION-28 completed (from jjc@hpl.hp.com on 2007-11-27)
23. ISSUE-74 (XSD URIs for facets): REPORTED: Use the xsd namespace for the facet names (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2007-11-26)
24. Open issues dealing with user defined datatypes (from msmith@clarkparsia.com on 2007-11-12)
25. ISSUE-29 (owl:DataRange): REPORTED: User-defined Datatypes: owl:DataRange vs rdfs:Datatype (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2007-10-25)

Related notes:

Display change log.