W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > December 2007

Re: ISSUE-49 (structural IRIs): REPORTED: structural specification should use IRIs, not strings

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2007 07:27:58 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20071202.072758.206621825.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org

The problem here is in the structural specification, i.e., the
diagrams.  There has been a change in Section 2.1 of SS&FS to partly
alleviate the issue:

	If o1 and o2 are atomic values, such as strings, integers, or
	IRI (URI), they are structurally equivalent if they are equal
	using equality for their atomic type, i.e., they are the same
	string, integer, or IRI.

However, the underlying type used throughout the diagrams for IRIs is
string, not IRI, leading to the conclusion that the values are strings
and that string equality is to be used.

peter



From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: ISSUE-49 (structural IRIs): REPORTED: structural specification should use IRIs, not strings
Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 19:55:05 +0000

> 
> Seems to me that this has been addressed by the use of CURIES  
> (ISSUE-14) and the fact that Section 2.2 [1] now says:
> 
> The syntax of full and abbreviated IRIs in OWL 1.1 is defined as  
> follows.
> 
> Full-IRI := '<' IRI as defined in [RFC-3987] '>'
> Abbreviated-IRI := curie
> URI := Full-IRI | Abbreviated-IRI
> 
> Unless I hear to the contrary I will close this issue as RESOLVED.
> 
> Ian
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Syntax#URIs.2C_Namespaces. 
> 2C_and_Integers
> 
Received on Sunday, 2 December 2007 12:45:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:13:29 GMT