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

Re: new draft response for LC comment 66 AR1

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 08:33:23 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20090318.083323.34429533.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: alanruttenberg@gmail.com
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
I really don't want to suggest against people using, for example, the
XML Schema datatypes that RIF has in addition to the ones in the OWL 2
datatype map.  To me, this means not SHOULD-ing out these datatypes in
OWL 2.

Similarly, I don't want to prevent people from using W3C names for
particular relations amongst datatypes.  To me, this means not
SHOULD-ing out the XPATH, ... namespaces.

It would be nice to say something like:

  Don't do anything stupid with the W3C namespace, e.g., having
  datatypes, ..., that are incompatible with those defined by various
  W3C recommendations.

However, this could equally well apply to any well-known namespace, and
I don't really want to say something like:

  OWL 2 ontologies *SHOULD NOT* do anything stupid, e.g., being
  gratuitously incompatible with well known standards.


From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: new draft response for LC comment 66 AR1
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 04:16:28 -0400

> Hello Peter,
> There are two concerns I have with this response.
> The first is that with the possibility of N-ary datatypes, functions,
> as described in XPATH[1], are now in scope for datatypes. There may be
> further W3C specifications of functions as well. My concern is that
> these not be defined by users in a way that constrains future W3C and
> OWL standardization efforts.
> The second is that, as you know, I have concerns about the way that
> datatypes are specified in XML schema, and what it means to be
> compatible with them. Therefore, leaving the interpretation of these
> up to users of OWL is likely to lead to incompatible ontologies. I
> would like to avoid this.
> An alternative would be say that datatypes with URIs from domain
> w3.org or subdomains, other than the ones mentioned in our
> specification, SHOULD NOT be in the datatype map.
> -Alan
> [1]  http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath-functions/#namespace-prefixes
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 4:03 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.
>> The Syntax document as of the date of your message stated
>>  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 meant 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 and thus
>> attempts to go counter to XML Schema datatypes outside of those in the
>> OWL 2 datatype map were not allowed in OWL 2 ontologies.
>> Recent changes to OWL 2, notably the division of OWL 2 syntax conditions
>> into general conditions and OWL 2 DL conditions, have resulted in the
>> relaxation of this rule, but still in a manner that appears to be in
>> accord with your desires.  Currently the Syntax document states
>>  OWL 2 tools MAY support datatypes that are not listed in this
>>  section. [...]  If such an extension includes datatypes from XML
>>  Schema [XML Schema Datatypes] not listed in the following sections,
>>  these SHOULD be supported in a manner consistent with their respective
>>  definition in XML Schema.
>> 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, 18 March 2009 12:32:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:10 UTC