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

Re: XSD dependency (urgent problem)

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 14:14:29 -0400
Message-ID: <20090819.141429.149775051.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: <baojie@cs.rpi.edu>
CC: <sandro@w3.org>, <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
I believe that the substantive revisions (i.e., the new appendix) would
go in SS&FS.  Some other documents may need to be modified along the
lines of

	OWL 2 datatypes follow XML Schema 1.1 datatypes, although, as as
	of this writing XSD 1.1 is not yet a W3C recommendation, OWL 2
	has a separate, compatible definition of the datatypes that are
	new or have changed in XSD 1.1.

I think that the only documents that may need this wording are

rdf:PlainLiteral may need some separate work.


From: Jie Bao <baojie@cs.rpi.edu>
Subject: Re: XSD dependency (urgent problem)
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 13:01:36 -0500

> option 2 looks feasible - what docs will be revised?
> Jie
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 9:46 AM, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org<mailto:sandro@w3.org>> wrote:
> Although XSD 1.1 [1] went to CR some months before OWL and was scheduled
> to end CR at the beginning of August like us, the preliminary
> information I have so far indicates it will be some more months before
> they are ready to go to PR.
> As I understand it, we have three options:
>    1.  Wait for them.  The one detail I heard was that they aim to get
>        to PR "in the fall".  I interpret that as delaying us 2-4
>        months, and possibly more.  We may be able to get better
>        schedule data in a few days.  (It's been hard to make contact
>        this month; I finally got a response yesterday.)  I think we
>        could wait before going to PR, or before going to REC, but I
>        think it's best to wait before going to PR so that we can still
>        use Options 2 and 3, below, without doing a second PR.
>    2.  Excerpt the relevant parts of their text.  I'm told this has
>        been done before with XML specs at W3C.  The advice I got is to
>        do it explicitely: to create a normative appendix that has all
>        the parts of XSD 1.1 we need, and note why it's there,
>        explaining that a future edition [2] of the OWL spec may remove
>        it, after XSD 1.1 gets to REC.
>    3.  Rework our spec to not depend on XSD 1.1.  This might include
>        creating some parallel datatype spec, as in Option 2, but using
>        a different namespace.  I'm not sure of the details, but I
>        believe it would create a permanent partial-incompatibility
>        between OWL 2 and XSD 1.1.  This option might require another
>        Last Call and CR, depending on how deep the changes turn out to
>        be.
> I'm in favor of option 2, as I suspect are all of you.  The catch is
> that we'll need approval from the Schema WG, and their approval will
> depend on their confidence that the parts we're excerpting will not have
> substantive changes before REC.
> I think the way to proceed is to draft the appendix for option 2 and
> show it to the Schema WG.  Then they can consider its stability, and
> decide whether to support our use of it.  [If I were saying this in a
> meeting, I expect Boris would complete the drafting before the ensuing
> discussion ended.  :-)  ]
> Procedurally, I see this as new information, leading us to revisit the
> PR publication decision of August 5, allowing us to try Option 2, and
> possibly even Option 3, so we can avoid Option 1.
>     -- Sandro
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-2/
> [2] "Editions" are minor revisions of recommendations, fixing errata,
>    and do not go through the whole WD/LC/CR process.  The XML spec is on
>    it's fifth edition: http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-xml-20081126/
Received on Wednesday, 19 August 2009 18:15:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:13 UTC