W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > January 2008

Re: My ACTION-64 (to propose closing ISSUE-29)

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 03:14:40 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20080110.031440.23669310.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Subject: My ACTION-64 (to propose closing ISSUE-29)
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 02:13:49 +0000

[...]

> If you look at ISSUE-29,
> 	http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/29
> 	
> Peter and Jeremy have been way active on it, but there still seem to  
> be some controversy.
> 
> Peter proposed a resolution:
> 	http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jan/0017.html
> 
> But I don't understand how it disposes of ISSUE-29.

My proposal is to accept Holger's suggestion of moving from
owl:Datarange to rdfs:Datatype.   The resolution would be to eliminate
owl:Datarange in favour of rdfs:Datatype.

> Hmm. Ok, we have owl:DataRange already...oh, I have trouble bringing  
> myself to care :) It looks to me like it doesn't matter because their  
> semantic conditions (in the RDFS style model theory) are similar  
> (subsets, not necessarily disjoint) of LV_i). And this is basically  
> Peter's point 4 (though I don't understand the OWL Full  
> restriction...I guess it doesn't matter).

[...]

> I'm guessing, but only guessing, that Holger wants the rdf mapping to  
> use rdfs:Datatype where it currently uses owl:DataRange (I don't take  
> the talk of "modeling" seriously because I don't believe he...or  
> anyone...is being sensitive to the subtle potential semantic issues.  
> If I'm wrong, please let me know.) I guess we could do that and only  
> with dataOneOf *also* add the owl:DataRange triple for backward  
> compatibility (if anyone ever used it).

Yes, I believe that Holger is asking to eliminate owl:Datarange as
unneeded and replace it by rdfs:Datatype in OWL Full.

[....]

> Cheers,
> Bijan.

I don't think that there is any interaction between this and infinite
abstract domains.

peter
Received on Thursday, 10 January 2008 08:40:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 10 January 2008 08:40:44 GMT