W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > May 2012

Re: status of xsd:duration in OWL (and RIF and SPARQL) - ACTION-164: RDF WG

From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@cs.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Sun, 6 May 2012 23:19:37 +0100
Cc: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, public-owl-wg@w3.org, "Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>, Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, "Evain, Jean-Pierre" <evain@ebu.ch>
Message-Id: <B1119CE5-1136-41F1-A384-540E6EB60C4F@cs.ox.ac.uk>
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Hi Bijan (et al),

According to my understanding, we agreed to keep the WG alive so that we could fix any OWL 2 problems caused by changes to XSD 1.1 and update the OWL 2 Rec to reference the XSD 1.1 Rec. It was also foreseen that we could take advantage of this update to fix any editorial errata in the OWL 2 Rec. 

While I agree that the dividing line between editorial errata and substantive changes is not 100% clear, it does seem pretty obvious to me that adding support for a new datatype goes beyond the spirit of this agreement.

Regards,
Ian 



On 4 May 2012, at 12:39, Bijan Parsia wrote:

> On 4 May 2012, at 12:34, Ivan Herman wrote:
> [snip]
>>> New features are explicitly allowed. So we don't even have to get into what "feature" means. It's explicitly allowed.
>> 
>> Sorry, you are right. But it also says:
>> 
>> "For the fourth class of change (new features), W3C must follow the full process of advancing a technical report to Recommendation."
> 
> As I acknowledged below:
> 
> "Clearly not, afaict. We could do that, of course. We would have to have a nominal LC, CR, and PR, though these are frankly, to my mind, ridiculous."
> 
> But my understanding is that that would be an *edited recommendation*, not a new recommendation.
> 
> I am happy to push toward a 2.1 and I'm also happy to try to add datatypes in a non-Rec way.
> 
> But surely this is a prime example of strong interpretation of the Rules getting in the way of what is a relatively minor fix.
> 
> BTW, Can we add comments to the Functional Syntax as requested? I think that would be useful as well :)
> 
>> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr#rec-advance
>> 
>> which means going through the whole WD-LC-CR-PR-REC route.
> 
> Sure, but it can be superlightweight. (We could go straight to a short LC. Reasonable CR, then short PR.) The key bit is CR I think...i.e., we'd need to get a couple of implementations on board. But these are not profoundly tricky datatypes. (It's not like adding floats or decimals or rationals or strings). It's mostly a syntax level tweak.
> 
> I think this is a very super scoped change. If we open the door any further, that would be dangerous, I agree.
> 
> Let me put it another way, I think it could be a very superscoped change that nevertheless would be high value.
> 
> Cheers,
> Bijan.
Received on Sunday, 6 May 2012 22:20:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 May 2012 22:20:07 GMT