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

Re: Invitation for review of POWDER documents (Last Call)

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 09:58:44 +0200
Message-ID: <49F808B4.1040109@w3.org>
To: Stasinos Konstantopoulos <konstant@iit.demokritos.gr>
CC: Phil Archer <phil@philarcher.org>, W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Dear Stasinos and Phil,

the WG has looked at your responses and we agree with all of them
(including the change on the 'some' vs. 'all').

Thanks and good luck with the final round of your document progress!

Ivan
(in the name of the OWL WG)


Stasinos Konstantopoulos wrote:
> Ivan, W3C-WG, hi.
> 
> On Apr 16, 2009, at 10:52 AM, Ivan Herman wrote:
> 
>> - The reference should be to XSD1.1 and not XSD2:
>>      http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-2/
>>
>> - 'At the time of writing, the OWL-2' should say "OWL 2" (ie, no  
>> hyphen)
>>
>> - The reference to OWL 2 currently points to the OWL 2 Primer. We  
>> think
>> it would be better if it pointed at the (new) OWL 2 Document Overview:
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-overview/
> 
> All updated, thank you.
> 
>> - The semantic condition refers to rdfs:Resource for the domain of
>> hasIRI. Although the description refers to an extension of the RDF
>> semantics, it makes use of, say, owl:DatatypeProperty. Hence it may be
>> stylistically better to refer to owl:Thing.
> 
> I am leaning towards removing the domain triple altogether, as
> it is obviously gratuitous.
> 
>> - The encoding of the condition in the example has several problems,
>> partially due to some recent changes in OWL 2. These are:
>>
>>    - namespace changes (OWL 2 refers to xsd:pattern directly and not
>> owl:pattern (OWL 2 reuses rdfs:Datatype instead of owl:datarange)
> 
> Updated.
> 
>>    - we also think that the type of restriction used is inappropriate.
>> owl:hasValue should refer to a single individual and not to a
>> datatype/datarange. Based on the rest of the POWDER semantics, what  
>> you
>> probably have to use is owl:allValuesFrom, but this is something you
>> have to decide, of course
> 
> Shouldn't it be owl:someValuesFrom to guarantee that the specified
> value exists? Since hasIRI is functional, it also guarantees that all
> values are also as expected. I am interested in OWL WG's reaction to
> this.
> 
>>    - the RDF mapping of facets is based on a list of blank nodes
>> instead of the approach used in the current code
>>
>> The first example (the second has similar structure) should look
>> something like:
>>
>> <owl:Restriction>
>>  <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="....#hasIRI"/>
>>  <owl:allValuesFrom>
>>    <rdfs:Datatype>
>>      <owl:onDatatype rdf:resource="...#string"/>
>>      <owl:withRestrictions rdf:parseType="Collection">
>>        <rdf:Description>
>>          <xsd:pattern rdf:datatype="...#string">PATTERN</xsd:pattern>
>>        </rdf:Description>
>>      </owl:withRestrictions>
>>    <rdfs:Datatype>
>>  </owl:allValuesFrom>
>> </owl:Restriction>
> 
> Indeed, modulo the owl:allValuesFrom vs. owl:someValuesFrom issue.
> 
> Best,
> Stasinos

-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf


Received on Wednesday, 29 April 2009 07:59:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 29 April 2009 07:59:05 GMT