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

RE: draft response for LC comment 16 (lexical value)

From: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 13:54:10 +0100
Message-ID: <0EF30CAA69519C4CB91D01481AEA06A00107188E@judith.fzi.de>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Ah, I remember, I was asked to draft this myself in one telco... :-] 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org]
>On Behalf Of Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2009 1:10 PM
>To: public-owl-wg@w3.org
>Subject: draft response for LC comment 16 (lexical value)
>
>
>[Draft Response for LC Comment 16] MS6
>
>To: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
>CC: public-owl-comments@w3.org
>Subject: [LC response] To Michael Schneider
>
>Dear Michael,
>
>Thank you for your comment
>
>    <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-
>comments/2009Jan/0007.html>
>
>on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts.
>
>Thanks for pointing the divergence between the nomenclature in the OWL 2
>documents and that used previously. We have moved from lexical value to
>lexical form to be consistent with XML Schema datatypes and RDF.
                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Actually, my comment was more about consistency with /OWL 1/ and RDF. 

Concerning XML Schema, being consistent with this standard looks to me more as "nice to have" than to be a requirement. Our notion of a datatype or a datatype map is not totally dependent on that of XSD, and we even define datatypes outside the scope of XSD (rdf:XMLLiteral, owl:rational).

But when I look into the XSD spec at

  http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/

I can see that this document uses /two/ different terms: 

  * "lexical form" (e.g. in §3.2.16), and

  * "lexical representation" (e.g. in §3.2.17.1).

I'm not an XSD expert. Does anyone know whether these terms are used as synonyms? In this case, things would be especially fine for us. 
  
Nevertheless, I think we should not refer to XSD to motivate our step to change the terminology. It should be sufficient to point to OWL 1 and RDF. And these two specs say "lexical form".

>The diffs can be found at
>... Syntax
>... Direct Semantics

and "... RDF-Based Semantics".

>The working group views this as an editorial change.

Yes, of course!

>
>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

Best,
Michael

PS: Apart from the somewhat hairsplitting discussion above, I, as the original commenter, would be happy with the outcome to use "lexical form". :)

--
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 Studer
Vorsitzender des Kuratoriums: Ministerialdirigent Günther Leßnerkraus

==============================================================================



Received on Saturday, 21 February 2009 12:54:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 21 February 2009 12:54:51 GMT