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 18:45:27 -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: <1DE76EDE-F676-44A0-83B1-11B7CC666164@cs.rpi.edu>
To: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
thanks, I know we had resolved this, and that we had said it was an  
editorial clarification, I just wanted to be sure we weren't missing  
anything process-wise - sounds to me like the bases were covered - as  
a former WG chair, I know that things like this can get cnfusing in  
the final stages - wanted to be sure it didn't introduce delays.
  -JH


On Jul 28, 2009, at 6:39 PM, Ian Horrocks wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

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 22:46:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 28 July 2009 22:46:16 GMT