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

Datatype (Map) Conformance Strangeness

From: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 17:19:30 +0200
Message-ID: <0EF30CAA69519C4CB91D01481AEA06A00125F753@judith.fzi.de>
To: <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Hi!

I had a closer look at the "Datatype map conformance" section (§2.1.2) in the Conformance document:

  <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Conformance&oldid=21801#Datatype_Map_Conformance>

I am pretty confused by the current state. I don't understand why the section refers to the OWL 2 Full datatype map, or to datatype maps at all? The section is still about syntactic conformance, and the only relevant thing here seems to be which datatypes may occur in ontologies.

I think, the paragraph confuses two things:

1) The set of datatypes and their properties, i.e. value spaces, lexical spaces, facets. These are specified in the Structural Spec (mainly by referring to XSD and other specifications) and are invariant for the Direct Semantics and the RDF-Based Semantics.

2) The definitions of datatype maps. These definitions are part of the two semantics, and they differ from each other structurally in order to match the different semantic frameworks. 

I believe only 1) is relevant for Section 2.1.2, while the (different) aspects of datatype maps in 2) have no relevance for syntactic conformance at all. 

Maybe the confusion already stems from the title that has been chosen for this section (and has been around for a while, I think): I'd say that it should be changed from "Datatype Map Conformance" to "Datatype Conformance", because datatype /maps/ do not really play a role here, only the /set/ of datatypes supported by OWL 2 is of relevance.

Here is a proposal for a revision of the Section as I think it would be more appropriate:

>>>>>>>>> BEGIN PROPOSAL <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

==== Datatype Conformance ====

In OWL 2, semantic conditions are defined with respect to a set of datatypes. This <em title="MUST in RFC 2119 context" class="RFC2119">MUST</em> be either the set of datatypes as defined in [[Syntax#Datatype_Maps|Section 4]] of the OWL 2 Syntax specification [<cite>[[#ref-owl-2-specification|OWL 2 Specification]]</cite>]), or an extension of this set to include additional datatypes.

Note that:
# A conformant OWL 2 DL ontology document <em title="MUST NOT in RFC 2119 context" class="RFC2119">MUST NOT</em> use datatypes other than those specified in [[Syntax#Datatype_Maps|Section 4]] of the OWL 2 Syntax specification [<cite>[[#ref-owl-2-specification|OWL 2 Specification]]</cite>].
# OWL 2 Profiles may support only a reduced set of datatypes. This is, however, a syntactic condition that must be met by documents in order to fall within the relevant profile, and the semantic conditions on the supported datatypes are unchanged. This also defines conditions on unsupported datatypes, but as these datatypes never occur in conforming documents the additional conditions are simply irrelevant.

>>>>>>>>> END OF PROPOSAL <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Cheers,
Michael

--
Dipl.-Inform. Michael Schneider
Research Scientist, Dept. Information Process Engineering (IPE)
Tel  : +49-721-9654-726
Fax  : +49-721-9654-727
Email: michael.schneider@fzi.de
WWW  : http://www.fzi.de/michael.schneider
=======================================================================
FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik an der Universität Karlsruhe
Haid-und-Neu-Str. 10-14, D-76131 Karlsruhe
Tel.: +49-721-9654-0, Fax: +49-721-9654-959
Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts, Az 14-0563.1, RP Karlsruhe
Vorstand: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Rüdiger Dillmann, Dipl. Wi.-Ing. Michael Flor,
Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Wolffried Stucky, Prof. Dr. Rudi Studer
Vorsitzender des Kuratoriums: Ministerialdirigent Günther Leßnerkraus
=======================================================================



Received on Friday, 10 April 2009 15:20:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 10 April 2009 15:20:22 GMT