- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 23:29:31 -0400
- 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 UTC