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

Re: draft response for LC comment 62 JM1

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 05:07:06 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20090220.050706.63159755.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: ivan@w3.org
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
I believe that your changes are less accurate and less true than the
original.  I tried to be very careful to craft a response that was
accurate no matter how any naming issues are resolved.  In particular,
it is not a good idea to refer to the direct semantics here.

peter


From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Subject: Re: draft response for LC comment 62 JM1
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 09:47:35 +0100

> 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
Received on Friday, 20 February 2009 10:07:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 20 February 2009 10:07:08 GMT