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

Re: A proposal for clarifying the definitions of datatype maps, take II

From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 21:52:49 +0100
Message-Id: <70182DE0-CACB-47D1-9B5C-B5A9FA1246F3@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Cc: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
To: "OWL 1.1" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
As you will recall, the WG approved Boris's proposal during the 1st  
July teleconf [1]. Completing the necessary work has taken a while --  
entirely my fault for being slow to do the necessary work on  
Conformance.

To summarise, Boris has clarified the definition of datatypes and the  
OWL datatype map in Syntax. As a result, Conformance no longer needs  
to specify constraints on datatypes and the datatype map (e.g., that  
conformant tools must use the OWL 2 datatype map) -- the datatypes  
that can occur in (profile) documents and that must be supported by  
(profile) tools are now explicitly defined in Syntax and Profiles.  
The relevant diffs are:

http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php? 
title=Syntax&diff=24783&oldid=24704
http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php? 
title=Syntax&diff=24850&oldid=24798
http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php? 
title=Conformance&diff=24942&oldid=24877

Please let us know ASAP if you have any comments w.r.t. these changes.

Regards,
Ian

[1] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2009-07-01#resolution_2


On 29 Jun 2009, at 14:33, Boris Motik wrote:

> Hello,
>
> In April I've sent around the following e-mail, in which I've  
> proposed to
> clarify certain definitions surrounding datatype maps:
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Apr/0454.html
>
> Please refer to my original e-mail for the details; in short, the  
> idea is to
> remove certain discrepancies between Conformance and the rest of  
> the documents,
> with Conformance being taken as a guideline.
>
> I haven't pushed this forward earlier because we were getting ready  
> to go into
> CR. Since we've successfully reached that milestone, now seems like  
> a perfect
> time for improving the spec. Therefore, unless someone objects, I  
> would make a
> few editorial changes to the spec and inform the WG of the outcome.
>
> Regards,
>
> 	Boris
>
>
Received on Sunday, 26 July 2009 20:53:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 26 July 2009 20:53:30 GMT