W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > March 2009

draft response for LC comment 66 AR1

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 20:58:39 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20090303.205839.197937093.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: public-owl-wg@w3.org
[Draft Response for LC Comment 66:] AR1

Dear Alan,

Thank you for your message
  <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Feb/0272.html>
on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts.
 
Your message appears to be resting on a misconception concerning the
status of the XML vocabulary in OWL 2.

The Syntax document (draft at <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Syntax>)
states that:

  IRIs belonging to the rdf, rdfs, xsd, and owl namespaces constitute
  the reserved vocabulary of OWL 2. As described in the following
  sections, the IRIs from the reserved vocabulary that are listed in
  Table 3 have special treatment in OWL 2. All IRIs from the reserved
  vocabulary not listed in Table 3 constitute the disallowed vocabulary
  of OWL 2 and MUST NOT be used in OWL 2 to name entities, ontologies,
  or ontology versions.

This means that the use of XML Schema datatypes that are not stated as
usable in OWL 2 takes an ontology outside the scope of OWL 2.  

Please acknowledge receipt of this email to
<mailto:public-owl-wg@w3.org> (replying to this email should
suffice). In your acknowledgment please let us know whether or not you
are satisfied with the working group's response to your comment. 

Regards,
Peter F. Patel-Schneider
on behalf of the W3C OWL Working Group 
Received on Wednesday, 4 March 2009 01:58:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 4 March 2009 01:58:26 GMT