Re: [LC Response] To Zhe Wu Re: OWL 2 LC Comments

Dear Peter,

Thanks for the response. I will pass it on and let the WG know if Oracle 
is happy with this response.

Zhe

Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> Dear Zhe,
>
> Thank you for your message
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Jan/0083.html>
> on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts.
>  
> Your message contains multiple sections, affecting more than one
> document, and will thus generate multiple replies.  This response
> is for sections 4 and 8 about the datatypes in OWL 2 RL.
>
> We have adjusted the datatypes of OWL 2 RL to include those XML Schema
> datatypes that are derived from xsd:string and xsd:integer, including
> xsd:positiveInteger, plus xsd:boolean.  These were excluded from OWL 2
> RL because of a mistaken analogy with OWL 2 EL and OWL 2 QL, namely that
> intersection of value spaces must be either empty or infinite to
> maintain the desired properties of the profile.  It turns out that this
> is not needed in OWL 2 RL to obtain its desired computational
> properties.  As any OWL 2 RL tool has to process xsd: string and
> xsd:integer, the added implementation burden to support these datatypes
> is negligible.
>
> The situation with owl:rational and owl:real is different.  The working
> group has received complaints that implementing these datatypes may
> require significant effort on top of a rule reasoner.  Therefore
> owl:rational and owl:real have been removed from OWL 2 RL.  This
> possibility was mentioned in Feature At Risk #2.
>
> The diffs for these changes can be found at
> <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Profiles&diff=18687&oldid=18109>
>
> The working group notes that Oracle has also brought up concerns with
> the treatment of xsd:float and xsd:double.  These two datatypes are not
> currently part of OWL 2 RL.   If this situation changes the working
> group will communicate with you.
>
> 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 Thursday, 5 March 2009 00:59:53 UTC