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:
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:

2007-11-27 16:57:11:
simplified by jjc to omit facet's which are now ISSUE-74

Initially http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-dev/2006OctDec/0109.html

From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 09:09:47 -0800
Message-ID: <4575A7DB.5030401@topquadrant.com>
To: public-owl-dev@w3.org
[Jeremy Carroll]

2008-01-18 09:51:59: See http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2008.01.16/Minutes#issue29 [Alan Ruttenberg]

2008-01-23 11:07:19: Closed in error. [Ian Horrocks]

2008-01-23 20:30:02: Change to Syntax:

http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Syntax&oldid=3140 (editorial)

Change to RDF mapping:

http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Mapping_to_RDF_Graphs&oldid=3141 [Peter Patel-Schneider]

Changelog:

2007-10-25 07:28:07: Created issue 'REPORTED: User-defined Datatypes: owl:DataRange vs rdfs:Datatype' nickname owl:DataRange owned by Bijan Parsia on product , description 'Initially <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-dev/2006OctDec/0109.html> From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com> Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 09:09:47 -0800 Message-ID: <4575A7DB.5030401@topquadrant.com> To: public-owl-dev@w3.org All, 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). Also, XSD facets appear to be called owl:<facet>, e.g. owl:minInclusive. I am wondering why 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]). Without knowing the design decisions that lead to the use of owl:DataRange, my naive point of view would be that rdfs:Datatypes may make it more consistent with the semantic web stack. I am sure the working group had good reasons for selecting owl:DataRange, but it would be useful to understand them from the outside. Also, I think we should use the xsd namespace for the facet names, so that they are written as xsd:minInclusive. Could anyone please clarify these issues? Thanks Holger PS: The family.owl linked from the OWL 1.1 web site currently appears to be inconsistent with the RDF mapping spec (at least with respect to the user-defined datatypes). [1] http://protege.stanford.edu/plugins/owl/xsp.html ' non-public [Peter Patel-Schneider]

2007-10-29 09:15:04: Description changed to 'Initially http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-dev/2006OctDec/0109.html From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com> Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 09:09:47 -0800 Message-ID: <4575A7DB.5030401@topquadrant.com> To: public-owl-dev@w3.org All, 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). Also, XSD facets appear to be called owl:<facet>, e.g. owl:minInclusive. I am wondering why 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]). Without knowing the design decisions that lead to the use of owl:DataRange, my naive point of view would be that rdfs:Datatypes may make it more consistent with the semantic web stack. I am sure the working group had good reasons for selecting owl:DataRange, but it would be useful to understand them from the outside. Also, I think we should use the xsd namespace for the facet names, so that they are written as xsd:minInclusive. Could anyone please clarify these issues? Thanks Holger PS: The family.owl linked from the OWL 1.1 web site currently appears to be inconsistent with the RDF mapping spec (at least with respect to the user-defined datatypes). [1] http://protege.stanford.edu/plugins/owl/xsp.html ' [Peter Patel-Schneider]

2007-10-29 09:15:04: Issue dissociated from any product [Peter Patel-Schneider]

2007-11-27 16:57:11: Description changed to ' 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 ' [Jeremy Carroll]

2007-11-27 16:57:11: Issue dissociated from any product [Jeremy Carroll]

2007-12-01 18:40:06: title changed to 'ACCEPTED: User-defined Datatypes: owl:DataRange vs rdfs:Datatype' [Ian Horrocks]

2007-12-01 18:40:06: Description changed to '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 ' [Ian Horrocks]

2007-12-01 18:40:06: Issue dissociated from any product [Ian Horrocks]

2008-01-18 09:51:59: Issue dissociated from any product [Alan Ruttenberg]

2008-01-18 09:51:59: Status changed to 'closed' [Alan Ruttenberg]

2008-01-22 15:45:04: title changed to 'RESOLVED: User-defined Datatypes: owl:DataRange vs rdfs:Datatype' [Ian Horrocks]

2008-01-22 15:45:04: Issue dissociated from any product [Ian Horrocks]

2008-01-23 11:07:19: Issue dissociated from any product [Ian Horrocks]

2008-01-23 11:07:19: Status changed to 'open' [Ian Horrocks]

2008-01-23 20:30:02: Issue dissociated from any product [Peter Patel-Schneider]

2008-01-25 16:26:15: Issue dissociated from any product [Jeremy Carroll]

2008-01-25 16:26:15: Status changed to 'closed' [Jeremy Carroll]

Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, Chairs, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, Staff Contacts
Tracker, originally developed by Dean Jackson, is developed and maintained by the Systems Team <w3t-sys@w3.org>.
$Id: index.php,v 1.231 2009/11/16 15:00:54 dom Exp $