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

Re: Question about datatype maps

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 16:31:48 +0100
Message-Id: <F509FDE1-3576-4DC2-A7DA-F3DD0CF60951@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>

On 12 Sep 2008, at 11:02, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:

> The OWL specification has a datatype map as a parameter. It's  
> unclear to me what are allowable extensions in the realm of  
> datatypes, and whether such extensions would be desirable from an  
> interoperability point of view. Now that we have a wide range of  
> datatypes, do we need to support extensibility here?

Yes.

> Our experience OWL 1, OWL 2, that choice and semantics of datatypes  
> are not a slam-dunk obvious choice, raising questions about whether  
> sanctioned extensions to OWL in this dimension would be beneficial  
> or cause more trouble than they are worth. Of course nothing would  
> prevent unsanctioned extensions - my question here is of what we  
> should encourage.

The core problem with OWL 1 wasn't that it sanctioned extensions, but  
that it underspecified the set of datatypes but *seemed* to spec them  
by way of the XML Schema spec. Hence interop problems on the *very  
same datatypes*. But we have a *much* better spec now and I think  
allowing for extensions is a good idea. I intend to introduce some  
e.g., via OWLED. I don't see it's a problem, certainly not the *same*  
problem.

BTW, this is another instance where the owl:x-foo idea would be helpful.

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Friday, 12 September 2008 15:29:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:06 UTC