Re: draft response for LC comment 62 JM1

Until our naming issue is solved, the exact relationships of OWL DL,
Full, FS are still a bit fuzzy and not 100% clear in the current
documents. Also, your first sentence also suggests some sort of a
primary role of syntax over DL:-(

May I suggest a slight re-write? Like:

[[[
Some naming of data ranges could be permitted in the Direct Semantics of
OWL 2, but one has to be careful about creating data range loops. The WG
did not explore adding this functionality and hence adding this extra
syntax and extra complication to the functional syntax.

In the RDF syntax, and hence in the RDF bases semantics of OWL 2, 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 the RDF
based semantics OWL 2 with no problems.

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

Cheers

Ivan


Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> [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 
> 

-- 

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