W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > April 2009

Datatype map conformance designation needed

From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 13:45:18 -0400
Message-Id: <45F9F413-F697-4B5A-92BF-BED548734007@creativecommons.org>
To: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Synopsis: To promote interoperability, the conformance document should
define a designation to apply to documents that conform to the OWL 2
datatype map, as opposed to some extended map.

Consider an OWL 2 ontology document that requires a particular
datatype map that extends the OWL 2 datatype map.  This document
cannot be given to an OWL 2 processor that does not understand that
datatype map, or else the document will not be understood correctly.
For example, it may be found consistent when in fact it is inconsistent,
or vice versa.

The conformance document lists two kinds of document conformance,
syntactic conformance and datatype conformance.  If a document is
described as having a particular kind of syntactic conformance, then
users will be aware that problems are likely to result if the document
is processed by a tool requiring a more stringent kind of conformance.

Datatype conformance is not different from syntactic conformance in
this regard.  It is just as important to be able to distinguish a
document requiring an extended datatype map from one that only
requires the OWL 2 datatype map, as it is to distinguish a document
requiring OWL 2 Full conformance from one that only requires OWL 2 DL
conformance.

I would not presume to say exactly what the designation should be,
but an adjective, adjectival phrase, or prepositional phrase would be
best so that conformance to the OWL 2 datatype map can be expressed
succinctly in conjunction with syntactic document conformance.  For
example, if the designation were the adjective "datatype-conformant"
(just a for-instance, not a term I advocate), one could say that a
document is a "datatype-conformant OWL 2 DL ontology document".

Best
Jonathan

(You may also consider this message to be in the way of a review of  
Conformance and Test Cases.  The suggestion is similar to the "strict"  
mode idea in Alan's review [1]. The issue connects to AR1 [2] but is a  
more general question concerning how users relate to datatype map  
extensions.)

[1] http://www.w3.org/mid/29af5e2d0903312316y60879c74yfb9ce5e23998699@mail.gmail.com
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Feb/0272.html
Received on Wednesday, 1 April 2009 17:59:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 1 April 2009 17:59:39 GMT