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

Re: [XSCH] My review of section 1

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 12:02:00 +0000
Message-ID: <41C810B8.6010306@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Jeff Pan <pan@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: SWBPD <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>



Looks OK to me, let's wait until Evan has reviewed and see whether he 
agrees or not.

Jeremy


Jeff Pan wrote:
> Jeremy,
> 
> Thanks for your comments.
> 
> 
>>concerning
>>http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/XSCH/xsch-sw-20041213/#sec-related
>>
>>Hi Jeff,
>>
>>I have three comments about section 1 for your consideration:
>>
>>a) could section 1.3 be entitled "Datatypes in OWL DL"
> 
> 
> It could.
>  
> 
>>b) it wasn't obvious to me the relevance of 1.4, after some thought I 
>>realised that this showed that user defined datatypes do not undermine 
>>the computational principles of OWL DL, and are suitable for use in 
>>them. I suggest a further introductory paragraph reminding the reader 
>>that OWL DL is built on DL theory and that extending OWL DL to use 
>>user-defined datatypes does depend on further DL theory than that 
>>presented in the OWL Semantics
> 
> 
>>c) even so, 1.4 felt a little out of place (relevant but too heavy too 
>>early), could it be moved to an appendix? e.g. add additional paragraph 
>>to 1.3 above current last para, explaining that other theoretical work 
>>is required, and that the appendix gives this work.
> 
> 
> A solution to extend OWL DL to support user-defined datatypes should cover
> 
> 1) a standard way of referring to an XML Schema user defined simple
> type with a URI reference, and
> 
> 2) a formal framework of combining SHOIN with user defined datatypes so that the combined language is still decidable.
> 
> Section 1.4 is an attempt to address 2) and can be extended in later versions. I propose to extend it in the following way:
> 
> 1. At the end of Section 1.3, explain further theoretical work is required.
> 2. Add a sub-section at the end of Section 2 to provide a high level description of 2); therefore, Section 2 provides a complete solution for the user defined datatypes problem.
> 3. Add an appendix to provide some technical details of 2).
> 4. Remove Section 1.4.
> 
> Greetings,
> Jeff
> 
> --
> Dr. Jeff Z. Pan  ( http://DL-Web.man.ac.uk/ )
> School of Computer Science, The University of Manchester
> 
> 
> 
> 
>>Jeremy
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 21 December 2004 12:02:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:09:41 UTC