> On Jun 26, 2014 8:02 AM, "Antoine Zimmermann" > <[email protected]> wrote: > > With these constructs, you would never be able to define the value space > of gYear, which is disjoint from all OWL-compatible datatypes. > [...] > > Now, you can still use xsd:gYear if you want because OWL 2 DL processors > do not have to reject all non-compliant ontologies. Actually, most OWL > processors would not bother much about gYear. Besides, these restrictions > are for OWL 2 DL ontologies but the OWL specs also specify OWL Full > ontologies, which are all valid RDF graphs. > Pellet supports xsd:gYear, but as a time point, not an interval - see: > https://github.com/clarkparsia/pellet/blob/master/core/src/main/java/com > /clarkparsia/pellet/datatypes/types/datetime/XSDGYear.java > Hermit only permits the OWL-DL datatypes, and checks for violations. > Fact++ and JFact only support the DL date types, but only signal an error if > they are asked to reason with them.
> This reinforces your point that there is not much win available > from using gYear instead of an xsd:integer. From a reasoning point of view, no. Other applications might of course be happy to know that a specific sequence of digits is a xsd:gYear (particularly validators etc.). Best, Lars
