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

[XSCH] was Re: [ALL] Requirements for updating OWL -- was FAQ : Constraints on data values range

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 03 May 2004 10:17:23 +0100
Message-ID: <40960E23.6000303@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: "Uschold, Michael F" <michael.f.uschold@boeing.com>
Cc: Alan Rector <rector@cs.man.ac.uk>, benoit.doumas@free.fr, public-swbp-wg@w3.org, Jeff Pan <zpan@cs.man.ac.uk>, Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>, Ulrike Sattler <sattler@cs.man.ac.uk>

Uschold, Michael F wrote:
> Alan is now suggesting that to this we add another task, which naturally
> follows: what things CANNOT be done easily or conveniently or AT ALL
> using OWL. This can then be fed back to [?WHO?] at the W3C as
> requirements for extensions/updates to OWL.

> I'd like to come in just to say that in a recent set of travels and
> discussions with potential users of OWL, the inability to express
> numeric constraints involving inequalities for things such as "Big
> Wheel" etc. is a big problem.  Virtual all my biomedical examples
> require normal values, value ranges, etc. which need this kind of
> expressiveness .

It is in scope for the XML Schema Datatypes TF to address the specific 
issue of how to (slightly) increase the expressivity of RDF and OWL to 
permit user-defined datatypes (and hence at least a minimal solution to 
the big wheel problem).

Quite how to deploy that solution (in terms of the standards) is yet to 
be determined ... since there was support for issuing a first datatypes 
note that raised the questions, I think this is a plausible question to 
ask the community at that point.

Personally, if the necessary changes to any recs were small, I would 
favour errata against the current recs. That might not fly ... another 
option might be to have a rec track doc ourselves; or simply to record 
the consensus and await the next revision of RDF, OWL and/or XML Schema 
to deploy this consensus within the Rec track.

Without having thought about it much, I think small errata is the 
simplest path, but might meet opposition, and having a rec track doc 
ourselves would be a mistake. This might leave us with simply 
documenting the current position and suggested changes (which seems to 
be Mike's position)

I would be nervous about generalizing this - e.g. QCC were considered by 
webont and rejected, I would be very uncomfortable with this group 
revisiting that - whereas the user-defined datatypes issue was desired 
by both RDF Core and WebOnt, but we did not have the effort to put into 
resolving the problems (i.e. to coordinate adequately with XML Schema 
WG, and to make sure that any solution for these problems in RDF and OWL 
does not interfere poorly with work they are doing)

Received on Monday, 3 May 2004 05:18:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:09:38 UTC