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

Re: new draft response for LC comment 66 AR1

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 12:45:31 +0000
Message-Id: <3C72A246-7585-448B-AADD-5D113861C69C@cs.man.ac.uk>
To: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On 18 Mar 2009, at 08:16, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:

> 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.

This is already accomplished by the current restriction. We can't  
control how the *W3C* defines these other terms further, and it'd be  
a bit overreaching to say that implementors cannot use other W3C  

> 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.

How is it up to the *users* of OWL? Implementors, perhaps, but that's  
true anyway.

> 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.

This unnecessarily stifles innovation. What I put in my datatype map  
is my concern. The W3C already has general policies for enforcing  
control of namespaces in its domain and we should delegate it to  
them. (For example, OWL 1.1 reused the OWL namespace until submission  
where we were forced to coin a new one; now I think that was a silly  
application of the policy, but the policy was enforced and enforced  
at the proper and appropriate spot; further warning is out of our  
proper baliwick).

Received on Wednesday, 18 March 2009 12:41:49 UTC

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