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

Re: draft responses for four JC LC comments

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 08:04:44 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20090513.080444.182419605.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: schneid@fzi.de
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
From: "Michael Schneider" <schneid@fzi.de>
Subject: RE: draft responses for four JC LC comments
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 13:32:33 +0200

>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org]
>>On Behalf Of Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>>Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 6:06 AM
>>To: public-owl-wg@w3.org
>>Subject: draft responses for four JC LC comments
>>I've put together draft responses for four of the JC LC comments.
>>See http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Responses_to_Last_Call_Comments for
>>more information.
>>PS:  On several of these responses much more could be said, e.g.,
>>pointing out the difficulties in keepin the RDF and OWL vocabularies
>>straight, but I've generally gone with the "more is less", if not "less
>>is more", philosophy.
> * Reification Comment: I'm happy with this draft. And I agree that a lot
> more could be said. If this should become necessary, I will be happy to
> volunteer to say more on this. The WG may take me as a champion for
> *not* (re|ab)using RDF reification as OWL's annotation vocabulary.


> * "Web-SROIQ" Comment: Maybe we should articulate that essentially all
> the "problematic" stuff was already contained in the original OWL member
> submission, where, to my knowledge, there was no distinction between the
> "OWL" part and the "Web-SROIQ" stuff -- and one of the submitting
> members was Top Quadrant!

Probably not worth mentioning.

> * NegProp Comment: The proposed change would have a large effect on the
> RDF-Based Semantics document. Many parts would need to be changed, and
> it would take me quite some thinking on how to treat this encoding. And
> it would be a pain to express in OWL Full what will then so easy in OWL
> DL: Having a negative property assertion on the right hand side of an
> entailment query, which IMO will often be a reasonable thing to ask
> for. And then there is also the round-tripping issue, which would
> probably have a lot of ramifications. So I deny this proposal.


> * "owl:real" Comment: As a preliminary note (because it's hard to tell
> without deeper analysis, and I don't have the time for this now), I
> don't currently see a technical problem with the cardinality of the
> universe of any OWL 2 RDF-Based interpretation being uncountable. In
> particular, I don't understand why Jeremy is concerned about a
> "dependency on the continuum hypothesis" (What dependency?). I also
> don't buy the argument that owl:real "breaks RDF conformance" and "is
> not a datatype". owl:real formally /has/ a lexical space and a
> lexical-to-value mapping, though the lexical space, and hence the
> argument space of the mapping, is empty. And Section 5 of RDF Concepts
> states:
>  - Each member of the value space may be paired with any number
> (including zero)
>    of members of the lexical space (lexical representations for that
> value).
> So this seems fine to me. But maybe we should contact one of the
> editors of the RDF Concepts spec to clarify how this is exactly
> meant. :-)

Probably not necessary.

> Michael

Received on Wednesday, 13 May 2009 12:04:07 UTC

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