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

Re: Last call comment - conformance/datatype map

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 01:45:53 -0500
Message-ID: <29af5e2d0902242245t46cb921bhf0c7802f09df995e@mail.gmail.com>
To: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
Cc: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
I am not suggesting forbidding all datatypes. I am suggesting it is
not a good idea to let random people define semantics for datatypes
that are likely to get standardized, or at a minimum warn that a
future working group is likely to tromple on them. At least within the
W3 space. If we hadn't had this be an issue with datatype support - a
legacy of the choice (or lack) in OWL 1 - an actual case where this
hurts, I wouldn't bring this up. We are interested in promoting
interoperability and this is along the lines of doing so.

We already prevent people, at least in DL, from using terms from the
rdf(s), xsd, and owl namespaces.

IRIs belonging to the rdf, rdfs, xsd, and owl namespaces constitute
the reserved vocabulary of OWL 2. As described in the following
sections, the IRIs from the reserved vocabulary that are listed in
Table 3 have special treatment in OWL 2. All IRIs from the reserved
vocabulary not listed in Table 3 constitute the disallowed vocabulary
of OWL 2 and must not be used in OWL 2 to name entities, ontologies,
or ontology versions.

I don't know what to think about whether such a restriction should
hold for full or not.


On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 1:31 AM, Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de> wrote:
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org]
>>On Behalf Of Alan Ruttenberg
>>Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 7:51 AM
>>To: W3C OWL Working Group
>>Subject: Last call comment - conformance/datatype map
>>I believe that it is our intention that implementation specific
>>datatype maps don't define behavior for, e.g. future datatypes added
>>to XML Schema (or datatypes we have rejected). AFAIK, there is no
>>proscription against this and I would like to have there be.
> I am *against* explicitly forbidding any datatypes.
> The RDF Semantics (D-Entailment = RDFS + datatype maps, to be more precise)
> does not explicitly disallow any datatypes, and the same is true for both
> OWL 1 Full and OWL 1 DL. I understand this to be intended: These languages
> just define a core set of datatypes, and a basic framework which allows
> implementers to add arbitrary custom datatypes, whenever this is useful for
> them.
> Disallowing datatypes would mean for an implementer who currently sells an
> RDF or OWL 1 system with some of the datatypes we forbid in OWL 2, that he
> cannot upgrade his system to an OWL 2 conformant system without removing the
> "bad" datatypes. This will hardly be acceptable for such an implementer and
> his customers.
> Michael
> --
> 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 Wednesday, 25 February 2009 06:46:32 UTC

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