Re: draft response for LC comment 66 AR1

I'm concerned that this doesn't go far enough. For instance the N-ary
datatypes extend into the realm of functions and we say nothing about
and the namespace http://www.w3.org/2005/xpath-functions, for
instance, is not mentioned in our spec. Moreover I would prefer a note
that is more proximate to the discussion of datatypes in the
conformance document.

-Alan

On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 9:58 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider
<pfps@research.bell-labs.com> wrote:
> [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 Thursday, 12 March 2009 12:05:44 UTC