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


From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 19:42:14 +0000
Message-Id: <F883D7F4-786D-4010-B929-11E195A706D3@cs.man.ac.uk>
To: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>

See: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/ALR1

Here's the text:

The working group has decided to make no change to OWL 2 in response  
to your comment. While we appreciate the use cases raised in your  
comment, we found that the specification and technical difficulties  
of adding such a feature at this time outweigh the benefits it would  
bring, esp. given the existence of various workarounds. For example,

* One could embed class expressions in literals, i.e., xsd:string or  
XMLLiteral. While you point out that "strings rust", one could  
introduce a named subtype of xsd:string that would allow tools, such  
as Protege 4, to syntax check the expressions.
* One could introduce a named class for the expression. To avoid  
cluttering the class hierarchy with these classes, one could either  
annotate the axioms, or use a distinguished naming scheme, or make  
them subclasses of a certain class.
* In OWL Full, this is available in certain forms. So one could use  
OWL Full to guide an extension.

The main issue with such workarounds is, of course, interoperability.  
However, we do feel confident that reasonable interoperability could  
be accomplished by your publishing details of the annotations (or  
naming scheme, or subtype) and having your popular tools support it."""

I guess there's boilerplate afterwards as well, "Please let us know  
if this satisfies you. Blah blah."

Received on Wednesday, 21 January 2009 19:38:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:08 UTC