W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > August 2004

RE: An inconsistency in OWL XML Presentation Syntax?

From: Boris Motik <Motik@fzi.de>
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 08:35:42 +0200
Message-ID: <BC630F6C39BFAB4CA1B35EFA0C7F217F555538@stan.fzi.de>
To: "Uschold, Michael F" <michael.f.uschold@boeing.com>, "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>, <public-webont-comments@w3.org>


I'm afraid that there is another problem with the OWL XML Presentation
Syntax. Namely, it does not contain a counterpart of the Datatype() axiom
from OWL Abstract Syntax. In this way it is not possible to store an
annotation of a datatype or a deprecation information for a datatype using
OWL XML Presentation Syntax.

Sincerely yours,

	Boris Motik

-----Original Message-----
From: Uschold, Michael F [mailto:michael.f.uschold@boeing.com] 
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 2:17 AM
To: Dan Connolly; Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Cc: Boris Motik; public-swbp-wg@w3.org; public-webont-comments@w3.org
Subject: RE: An inconsistency in OWL XML Presentation Syntax?

It seems to me that minimally, there should be a summary of known
errors/bugs/problems with OWL that is pointed to in a clear obvious
(i.e. hard to miss) manner in the official OWL document pages. This
current problem would go on that list.

If there is no mechanism for this to occur, it seems like an oversight.

Much harder is a process to come up with agreed changes to fix the


-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Connolly [mailto:connolly@w3.org] 
Sent: Monday, July 12, 2004 1:54 PM
To: Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Cc: Motik@fzi.de; public-swbp-wg@w3.org; public-webont-comments@w3.org
Subject: Re: An inconsistency in OWL XML Presentation Syntax?

On Mon, 2004-07-12 at 10:27, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> From: "Boris Motik" <Motik@fzi.de>
> Subject: An inconsistency in OWL XML Presentation Syntax?
> Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 11:39:41 +0200
> > 
> > Hello,
> > 
> > I'm just trying to implement a parser/serializer for OWL XML
> > Syntax, and have come across something which seems like an
inconsistency in
> > the syntax definition.
> > 
> > The problem is in DataRestriction/hasValue element, which, according
to the
> > standard, should have xsd:anySimpleType content. However, in all
> > elements which contain a constant, such as OneOf [data], or
> > DataPropertyValue, a constant is wrapped in a DataValue element.
> > 
> > I believe that this really is an inconsistency, since DataValue
> > including the 'datatype' attribute to specify the type of a
constant. This
> > attribute is not allowed on DataRestriction/hasValue, so it becomes
> > impossible to specify the datatype of the constant embedded in the
> > element.
> The situation is even worse than you state.  According to the grammar,
> hasValues for data restrictions are data types instead of data values,
> which is completely wrong, I believe.
> > To make that syntax unified in all cases, I'd suggest changing the
> > of the DataRestriction/hasValue element to be a DataValue element.
> I believe that this suggestion is the best approach.  In any case,
> something has to be done, I believe.
> >
> > Sincerely yours,
> > 
> > 	Boris Motik

Thanks for the careful review, Boris, and thanks, Peter, for
acknowledging the problem.

> However, I'm not sure who gets to make this change, as the WebOnt
> group has been disbanded.  I guess that the Semantic Web Coordination
> is now responsible,

Well, perhaps the Semantic Web Coordination Group is relevant, but
it has no particular obligation:

"The authors welcome comments on this document, but does not guarantee a
reply or any further action. [...] no commitment is made by the W3C, or
any of its members, regarding future updates."
  -- http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/NOTE-owl-xmlsyntax-20030611/

>  but I don't know how to communicate with them, as
> Lucent is not currently a W3C member.  I have cc'd this message to the
> Semantic Web Best Practices working group, as they are active, and may
> some official way of making the necessary change.

I don't believe their charter obliges them mandate to update this
document; I'm not sure it even gives them mandate.

It seems to me that this problem report and the acknowledgement
are minimally sufficient as a record of the situation. But if
somebody was interested to edit a revised version of the note,
I suppose we could find a way to publish it.

> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> Bell Labs Research
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 19 August 2004 06:36:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:09:39 UTC