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

Re: Datatype support implementation matrix

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 18:01:56 +0000
Message-Id: <37797670-DD3F-441F-96E2-40287A793BC0@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>

On 14 Nov 2007, at 17:34, Jeremy Carroll wrote:

> Bijan Parsia wrote:
>> Mike Smith and I have started gathering information about existing  
>> datatype (i.e., unary datapredicate) support in reasoners. We're  
>> soliciting reasoner authors to fill in the following matrix:
>>     http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pTmcCXR-dV6RpTEPxB0O-DQ
>> One thing we might consider is making some of the odder datatype  
>> optional, e.g., Name and NCName. Similarly, we might be more  
>> explicit about what facets are applicable, or, again, make some  
>> facets optional.
> If a reasoner supports string and supports the facets with which  
> Name and/or NCName are defined, then it should be strongly  
> encouraged to support these. I tend to agree that they are not  
> useful for typical semantic web apps, but in as much as the W3C  
> should form a coherent whole, we should encourage SemWeb  
> implementators to not wilfully not implement a part of some other  
> spec.

I'm largely indifferent.

>> This matrix could help drive test case generation as well.
>> We don't collect inline vs. external datatype support. AFAIK, only  
>> Pellet supports pointers into XML Schema documents. I'd welcome  
>> correction on this point!
> Jena supports this too; I wouldn't be surprised if the Pellet  
> support depends on the Jena support.

It doesn't.

>> I don't think it's as interesting to gather data about editors  
>> because it's much more trivial and it's pretty uninteresting to  
>> enumerate the builtin types "supported" by an editor.
>> Cheers,
>> Bijan.
>> P.S. We used a Google spreadsheet since 1) it's a heck of a lot  
>> easier to manage than wikisyntax table and 2) we want reasoner  
>> authors who aren't WG members to enter their own data :) We can  
>> always export and script transform.
> What about people without a google account?

As they are free, I would suggest that such people acquire one. A  
Gmail address works.

Otherwise, such people can wait until we're finished collecting the  
data and migrate to a wikipage. Google spreadsheets export to a  
number of different formats including .cvs, .html, and .xls, so it's  
not too hard to migrate. For this sort of thing, having a  
collaborative edition while getting ramped up makes things much easier.

Received on Wednesday, 14 November 2007 18:00:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:00 UTC