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

Re: Progress on QRG

From: Jie Bao <baojie@cs.rpi.edu>
Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 16:42:20 -0400
Message-ID: <b6b357670905031342l140c6703l7b1de062b3718cf8@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org, ekendall@sandsoft.com, dlm@cs.rpi.edu

On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 2:07 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider
<pfps@research.bell-labs.com> wrote:
> 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.
I think the WG should talk about it. AFAICS, there 5 terms meet this
requirement: owl:DataRange, owl:distinctMembers, owl:OntologyProperty,
owl:DeprecatedClass, and owl:DeprecatedProperty.

In any case, if some of the terms are not officially deprecated, we
should not document them in a way that may mislead users to think they
are deprecated. For example, if owl:DataRange is deprecated and
owl:OntologyProperty is not, we should make the difference clear.

Again, I by no means intend to reopen the Pandora's box on what should
be deprecated or not...

>> * 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.
Do you mean, e.g., xsd:string should point to


but not

http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#string (as it is)

>> Jie
> peter

Jie Bao
Received on Sunday, 3 May 2009 20:43:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:12 UTC