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

Re: draft response for JC2

From: Peter F.Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 19:29:10 -0400
Message-ID: <20090515.192910.138017371.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
CC: <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: draft response for JC2
Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 22:22:04 +0100

> On 15 May 2009, at 22:04, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
>> I'd leave out the part about empty lexical space.
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#DTYPEINTERP says:
>> "Formally, a datatype d is defined by three items:
>> 1. a non-empty set of character strings called the lexical space of d;"
>> However Pat says that this was forced on him for a reason he can't
>> remember and it is harmless to relax it.
>> Or perhaps say that the status of empty lexical spaces is
>> inconsistently documented and that in any case it doesn't cause harm.
>> Not sure.

This is all a mess - two normative sections that contradict each other.

> Or we could go with the definition that supports our interpretation
> (from the concepts document).

My preference, but we may be forced into the next.

> If we really wanted to, we could make the lexical space of owl:real an
> (unspecified) superset of owl:rational. That's, in effect, what we have
> anyway given the type relations.

Which requires implementations to permit at least one literal for
owl:real, e.g., "0"^^owl:real.  I suppose that there is no harm in
saying that owl:real supports all the literal forms of owl:rational.  If
it would make Jeremy happy about owl:real and owl:rational I wouldn't
mind adding this bit of harmless junk.

If the WG thinks this is a good way to go, who should ask Jeremy?

> I don't have a preference.

>> You don't address the forward compatibility hook being bad issue that
>> he raises. Not sure if it matters or not.
> It was in my first draft. Peter pulled it on "less is more". I mean, JC
> just says "boo forward hooks". Not much to say to that. We can put it
> back in. I am, again, indifferent.

I meant my changes to the third point to counter the "looking forward is
bad" claim.

> Cheers,
> Bijan.

Received on Friday, 15 May 2009 23:28:49 UTC

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