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

RE: A proposal for addressing LC comment 58 (fully typed functional-style syntax)

From: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 00:15:36 +0100
Message-ID: <0EF30CAA69519C4CB91D01481AEA06A001071803@judith.fzi.de>
To: "W3C OWL Working Group" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org]
>On Behalf Of Michael Schneider
>Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 10:48 PM
>To: Boris Motik
>Cc: W3C OWL Working Group
>Subject: RE: A proposal for addressing LC comment 58 (fully typed
>functional-style syntax)
>AFAICT, this would mean that many documents need a large revision:
>* Structural Spec
>* Direct Semantics
>* RDF Mapping
>* Profiles
>* Test Cases
>* the UFDs that use Functional Syntax
>This would also mean that I would have to rework the proof of the
>correspondence theorem between OWL 2 DL and OWL 2 Full in the RDF-Based
>Semantics, and actually the whole (long!) Section 7 there. This may be a
>of work for me, that does not have any advantage for the RDF-Based
>Semantics. I would not be happy with this additional burden.
>We had a decision on this almost a year from now, after long email
>discussions, and no one seemed to be exceptionally unhappy with this. In
>particular, AFAIR (I might be wrong) Matthew was even a guest at F2F2.
>say that the disadvantages on the implementer's side do not outweigh the
>additional burden on the (now small active part of the) WG.
>I propose to deny the requested change.

Just to be clear: This is a /proposal/, I do /not/ insist on this, i.e., I
won't formally object if we decide to switch back to "typed syntax". 

In fact, I would not even consider my reworking of the correspondence
section in the RDF-based Semantics a design change, and I certainly will go
on refining my proof there for quite a while, anyway, because there is
certainly still much room for refinement. :) So there would not be too much
delay, and also probably no danger of a second LC for the RDF-Based

But, unlike Boris, I cannot really say that I sympathize with this comment,
so I would also like to hear serious comments from others how they feel. I
would argue that both solutions, strongly typed FS and mandatory
declarations, are appropriate solutions, so I would be inclined to keep with
what we have now, given that this will take quite some working group effort
in order to be implemented, and we all have a lot of other (and probably
more important) things to do.

Dipl.-Inform. Michael Schneider
Research Scientist, Dept. Information Process Engineering (IPE)
Tel  : +49-721-9654-726
Fax  : +49-721-9654-727
Email: schneid@fzi.de
WWW  : http://www.fzi.de/ipe/eng/mitarbeiter.php?id=555


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
Stiftung Az: 14-0563.1 Regierungspräsidium Karlsruhe
Vorstand: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Rüdiger Dillmann, Dipl. Wi.-Ing. Michael Flor,
Prof. Dr. rer. nat. Dr. h.c. Wolffried Stucky, Prof. Dr. rer. nat. Rudi
Vorsitzender des Kuratoriums: Ministerialdirigent Günther Leßnerkraus


Received on Thursday, 19 February 2009 23:16:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:09 UTC