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

Re: Progress on QRG

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Sun, 03 May 2009 14:07:34 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20090503.140734.39846871.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: baojie@cs.rpi.edu
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org, ekendall@sandsoft.com, dlm@cs.rpi.edu
From: Jie Bao <baojie@cs.rpi.edu>
Subject: Progress on QRG
Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 00:45:14 -0400

> Hi All

[...]

> To be discussed
> * Whether "Appendix" should be call this way, or as "Difference from OWL 1"

OK as is.

> * Whether owl:distinctMembers is deprecated? It is not used in Syntax,
> nor used in the mapping from Syntax to RDF syntax (thus, effectively
> an OWL 2 editor will not produce a RDF document using
> owl:distinctMembers). It is indeed used (and only used) in parsing an
> OWL 2 RDF syntax document into the functional syntax ([4], Table 16),
> for clearly backwards compatibility to OWL 1. I'm not sure about its
> status. The current set of documents is quite silent on that, which
> may confuse some users. Note that I'm not arguing for its deprecation,
> I'm asking the right way to document it.

I would change 4.2 to something like "Compatability Vocabulary" and put
everything that is not generated by the FS -> RDF mapping in this
section.

> * Should Declaration be moved into the Annotation section?  - in
> syntax, it is said declarations are "nonlogical " [3].

No, declarations are not annotations.

> * In the Syntax, there is no mentioning of ontology properties. All
> the three built-in "ontology properties" are actually defined as
> annotation properties. However, in the RDF semantics, there are
> ontology properties. So it is to be discussed whether we should call
> them "Ontology Properties" or Annotation Properties for Ontologies".

Put them all in the list of annotation properties.

> ** do we ever have a formal solution for owl:OntologyProperty?

I don't understand why one is needed.

> * the name of rdfs:Literal - it is tentatively called "universal
> datatype" (in parallel to owl:Thing), or maybe just "rdfs literal"?

OK as is.

> * In linking xsd datatypes, shall we link to xsd1.0 or xsd 1.1?
> (currently only xsd:dateTimeStamp is linked to xsd1.1)

xsd 1.1 as that is what we are using.

> Jie

peter
Received on Sunday, 3 May 2009 18:07:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 3 May 2009 18:07:21 GMT