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: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 07:43:51 +0100
To: "'Alan Ruttenberg'" <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, "'Ian Horrocks'" <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Cc: "'OWL 1.1'" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <EACF42428C1147E0BF3CBC1BD4E630F1@wolf>
Hello,

While it is true that this sentence was removed, I don't think that anything has
been lost from the normative point of view.

The Syntax document now defines in Section 4 the OWL 2 datatype map as a fixed
set of datatypes; then, in Section 5 it says that people can use these datatypes
in OWL 2 ontologies. Datatypes are now just like any other construct: they are a
fixed part of the language. Saying something like "an OWL 2 tool must support
all OWL 2 datatypes" is thus tantamount to saying "an OWL 2 tool must support
all OWL 2 class constructors".

The sentence you refer to has been introduced because things have not been like
this earlier: the set of datatypes was not fixed and we initially allowed for a
pick-and-mix approach. Since this is now completely gone from all parts of the
Syntax document (as well as the other documents), I really don't think anything
special needs to be said about the support for datatypes: they need to be
supported in their entirety just like any other part of the language. 

Regards,

	Boris

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Alan Ruttenberg
> Sent: 28 July 2009 04:30
> To: Ian Horrocks
> Cc: OWL 1.1; Boris Motik
> Subject: Re: A proposal for clarifying the definitions of datatype maps, take
> II
> 
> 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=2
> 4877
> >
> > 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 06:45:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 28 July 2009 06:45:42 GMT