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: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 17:20:07 -0400
Cc: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, "'Alan Ruttenberg'" <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, "'OWL 1.1'" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <7CD201C2-DF33-4762-9097-AAF2EDDC85DA@cs.rpi.edu>
To: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
I hate to be a stickler for process, but this seems like it is  
slightly more than just a bug fix (esp. as it, appropriately, removes  
a MUST clause) - to be clear, I think this is a good change and I  
think it does not invalidate a move to CR, but we should ask our team  
reps (Ivan and Sandro) to make sure we are compliant with process and  
do whatever notification we need to do (if any) so that we can move  
ahead -- I think it may just need to be added as a note in the CR  
documentation (that we made this clarifying change), but at this late  
date let's be sure to dot our i's and cross our t's (as the expression  
goes)
  -JH


On Jul 28, 2009, at 6:09 AM, Ian Horrocks wrote:

> It might be worth adding that this was exactly the motivation for  
> the clarification/cleanup. As things stood before, the concept  
> language was precisely defined in Syntax/Profiles, and Conformance  
> simply said that conformant systems had to support the concept  
> language as defined in those documents; in contrast the datatype  
> language was relatively loosely defined (or at least allowed for  
> some variability), and Conformance "fixed" this by stating that  
> conformant systems must support all OWL 2 datatypes. This was  
> clearly undesirable -- important parts of the language specification  
> should not be "hidden" in Conformance.
>
> The result of the clarification is that Syntax/Profiles now  
> precisely define the datatype part of the language just as for the  
> concept part. Conformance can thus simply say that conformant  
> systems must support the language as defined in Syntax/Profiles.
>
> Ian
>
>
> On 28 Jul 2009, at 07:43, Boris Motik wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>
>

We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things,  
not because they are easy, but because they are hard - John F.  
Kennedy, Sept 12, 1962

Prof James Hendler				http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~hendler, @jahendler,  
twitter
Tetherless World Constellation Chair
Computer Science Dept
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY 12180
Received on Tuesday, 28 July 2009 21:20:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 28 July 2009 21:20:57 GMT