Re: new draft response for LC comment 66 AR1

Alan,

Are you now satisfied with the proposed response? If not, please  
propose an alternative response.

Ian


On 18 Mar 2009, at 13:51, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

> From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: new draft response for LC comment 66 AR1
> Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 09:25:38 -0400
>
>> On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 8:33 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>> <pfps@research.bell-labs.com> wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> If we want people to be able to use those, why aren't we including
>> them in OWL?
>
> Because we currently don't know how to include them in a manner  
> that is
> adequate to be part of a W3C recommendation.
>
>>> 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.
>>
>> As I've pointed out, the definition of op:numeric-add, is rather
>> complicated in XPATH. How do you propose that we don't arrive at a  
>> set
>> of implementations that behave differently?
>
> I'm not.  I'm explicitly letting implementations explore how to  
> support
> the XPATH functions.  If a consensus is arrived at then the consensus
> might make it into an extension to OWL.  If no consensus is arrived at
> then it is likely that the XPATH functions will not be used very  
> much in
> OWL ontologies.
>
>>> 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.
>>
>> I don't think people are typically gratuitously incompatible. But  
>> they
>> land up being incompatible for many reasons anyhow. I think that the
>> job of the OWL WG (now and in the future) is to define how OWL plays
>> in the space of other Semantic Web standards, and given that I can  
>> see
>> problems already, and that we already take protective measures to try
>> to ensure that into the future, like reserving use of certain
>> namespaces, I consider my suggestions to conservative and in line  
>> with
>> our current practice.
>>
>> -Alan
>
> I view your suggestions as unduly stifling experimentation in these
> areas.
>
> peter
>

Received on Thursday, 19 March 2009 15:15:41 UTC