W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-comments@w3.org > May 2009

Re: [LC response] To Thomas Lörtsch Re: comments on the owl 2 last call

From: thomas <thomas@stray.net>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 21:05:22 +0200
Cc: "Peter F.Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Message-Id: <C4E13FAC-B8E1-4629-B870-F97FD70C38A4@stray.net>
To: public-owl-comments@w3.org
Hello Working Group, hello Peter,

thank you for your response! I am satisfied with this the working  
groups response to my comment. The clarifications have helped and I'm  
glad to hear that the rdf:XMLLiteral datatype has a good chance of  
making it into the recommendation.

Thanks for all the hard work!
Thomas Lörtsch





Am 18.05.2009 um 14:40 schrieb Peter F.Patel-Schneider:

> Dear Thomas,
>
> Thank you for your comment
>     <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009May/0024.html 
> >
> on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts.
>
> Primer:
>
> The primer has undergone considerable revision, and is about to be
> released as a "Last Call" working draft. A primer is, by its very
> nature, susceptible to being pulled in very many different
> directions. Producing a primer that satisfies everyone's needs would  
> not
> be possible given the Working Group's resource constraints, and is
> probably not possible at all. The Working Group therefore decided to
> focus on producing a short language primer. We expect that additional
> Primer-like documents will be produced by third parties, as has been  
> the
> case with OWL.
>
> Other Introductory Documents:
>
> The remit of the Working group is primarily one of language
> specification, hence the technical nature of most documents. The  
> Working
> Group is already struggling with document overload and resource
> limits. The Working Group feels that the Primer and Quick Reference
> Guide provide an adequate introduction to OWL 2, and believes that  
> it is
> appropriate for additional user-facing documents to be produced  
> outside
> the Working Group.
>
> Syntactic Variations:
>
> One reason for the various syntaxes for OWL is that the "main" syntax
> (RDF/XML) is difficult to use, and in particular difficult to use for
> specification. The Functional syntax serves just this purpose: precise
> specification of the constructs of the language and their semantics.  
> The
> other syntaxes satisfy other requirements, in particular compatibility
> with XML tool chains (the XML syntax) and ease of reading/writing (the
> Manchester syntax). Developing (syntax conversion) tools is outside  
> the
> remit of the Working Group. Such tools are, however, already being
> developed by third parties; see, for example, the OWL API
> <http://owlapi.sourceforge.net/>.
>
> rdf:XMLLiteral:
>
> This datatype is listed as at-risk because the current known
> implementations for OWL 2 or variants thereof may not fully implement
> this feature. The Working Group expects that during the Candidate
> Recommentation phase (coming shortly), implementations will indeed be
> produced for rdf:XMLLiteral and its "at risk" status will be removed.
>
> RDF reification vocabulary:
>
> There are technical reasons not to use the RDF reification vocabulary,
> having to do with wanting an even weaker formal semantics, and
> perception reasons not to use the RDF reification vocabulary, having  
> to
> do with diverging intended meanings for the RDF reification
> vocabulary. Therefore, the Working Group is unwilling to use the RDF
> reification vocabulary.
>
> New namespace:
>
> The Working Group feels that OWL 2 is the "new" OWL, and OWL 2 is
> backwards compatible with OWL. There are also significant costs to
> having a separate namespace for OWL 2 (for example, writing qualified
> cardinality restrictions would be problematical). For these reasons  
> the
> Working Group decided that OWL 2 should not have a new namespace.
>
> Please acknowledge receipt of this email to
> <mailto:public-owl-comments@w3.org> (replying to this email should
> suffice). In your acknowledgment please let us know whether or not you
> are satisfied with the working group's response to your comment.
>
> Regards,
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> on behalf of the W3C OWL Working Group
Received on Monday, 18 May 2009 19:06:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 18 May 2009 19:06:17 GMT