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

draft response for LC comment 62 JM1

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 16:18:23 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20090219.161823.38484615.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: public-owl-wg@w3.org

[Draft Response for LC Comment 62] JM1 

Dear Jonas,

Thank you for your message
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Feb/0010.html
on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts.

Your comment is related to another last-call comment
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/0059.html
and this response is the essentially same as the relevant portion of the 
response to that comment, archived at
  ....................


Naming data ranges is not possible in the functional syntax, and thus is
not possible in OWL 2 DL.  Some naming of data ranges could be
permitted in OWL 2 DL, but one has to be careful about creating data
range loops.  The WG did not explore adding this extra syntax and extra
complication to the functional syntax.

In OWL 2 Full, it is of course possible to "name" a node that
corresponds to a data range.  This IRI could be used just as any other
datatype/class IRI in OWL 2 Full with no problems.


So you are not missing anything, at least so far as the functional
syntax is concerned.


Please acknowledge receipt of this email to
<mailto:public-owl-comments@w3.org> (replying to this email should
suffice). In your acknowledgment please let us know whether or not you
are satisfied with the working group's response to your comment. 

Regards,
Peter F. Patel-Schneider
on behalf of the W3C OWL Working Group 
Received on Thursday, 19 February 2009 21:18:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 19 February 2009 21:18:33 GMT