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: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 23:39:56 +0100
Message-Id: <CF1415EF-0EB8-4250-BB0D-33872BB5862C@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Cc: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, "'Alan Ruttenberg'" <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, "'OWL 1.1'" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
The WG (including Ivan and Sandro) discussed and resolved on this  
already -- see [1]. What I was reporting was simply the completion of  
the relevant action [2]. The rationale is that the change is only  
editorial, because we didn't change anything w.r.t. the overall spec  
-- the MUST simply moved from Conformance to Syntax.

My understanding is that we will report all such changes in the PR  
versions of the documents.

Let me know if you think we need to do something more.

Regards,
Ian

[1] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2009-07-01#resolution_2
[2] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/actions/344



On 28 Jul 2009, at 22:20, Jim Hendler wrote:

> 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 22:40:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 28 July 2009 22:40:38 GMT