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: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 23:29:31 -0400
Message-ID: <29af5e2d0907272029q39f38fderd033e6384ff1b5dc@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Cc: "OWL 1.1" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>, Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
I may have missed something, however it appears that these changes,
while clarifying the meaning of the datatypes in the OWL 2 Datatype
map, also remove a strong constraint - namely that OWL 2 DL tools MUST
support all the types in that datatype map.

In particular:

"OWL 2 tools <em title="MUST in RFC 2119 context"
class="RFC2119">MUST</em> support the OWL 2 datatype map described in
the rest of this section. "

has been removed.

I don't believe that Boris' original note suggested this would be the case.

I'd appreciate some clarification on this matter.

Thanks,
Alan



On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 4:52 PM, Ian
Horrocks<ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
> 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 Tuesday, 28 July 2009 03:30:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 28 July 2009 03:30:39 GMT