W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swd-wg@w3.org > October 2008

ISSUE-156 draft response

From: Sean Bechhofer <sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 17:34:44 +0100
Message-Id: <2DD3C2E2-6443-4CBC-B04C-0A5FE5E58EB7@manchester.ac.uk>
To: SWD Working SWD <public-swd-wg@w3.org>


Hi all,

Here's a draft response to Peter on [ISSUE-156], let me know what you
think. Note *this is just a draft, not the actual response* -- I'll
wait for feedback from the WG before replying formally to
Peter. (Peter if you're lurking on this list feel free to post your
thoughts at any time.)

	Sean


Dear Peter

 From Peter Patel-Schneider [1]:

One portion of SKOS (Notations) uses custom datatypes.  Although these
seem to be benign, because RDF and OWL allow extra datatypes, the use of
these datatypes is not likely to be supported by many tools.  The
presence of extra datatypes is likely to cause difficulties in some
tools, which may just reject SKOS documents that have these datatypes.

 From Peter Patel-Schneider [2]:

The OWL WG notes that one portion of SKOS (Notations) uses custom
datatypes.  Although these seem to be benign, because RDF and OWL allow
extra datatypes, the use of these datatypes is not likely to be
supported by many tools.  The presence of extra datatypes may cause
difficulties in some tools, which may just reject SKOS documents that
have these datatypes.


-------------------------------------------------------------

The text of section 6.5 has been changed to remove the reference to  
convention, and now states that type literal may be used in the  
object position.

With respect to your comment regarding extra datatypes, the OWL  
Ontology reference document [3] states:

[[
Tools may vary in terms of support for datatype reasoning. As a  
minimum, tools must support datatype reasoning for the XML Schema  
datatypes xsd:string and xsd:integer. OWL Full tools must also  
support rdf:XMLLiteral. For unsupported datatypes, lexically  
identical literals should be considered equal, whereas lexically  
different literals would not be known to be either equal or unequal.  
Unrecognized datatypes should be treated in the same way as  
unsupported datatypes.
]]

Thus we would not expect applications to *reject* SKOS documents  
containing unsupported datatypes.

We hope that you are able to live with these changes.

Cheers,

	Sean Bechhofer
	Alistair Miles

[ISSUE-156] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/156
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0018.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0059.html
[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#DatatypeSupport

--
Sean Bechhofer
School of Computer Science
University of Manchester
sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk
http://www.cs.manchester.ac.uk/people/bechhofer
Received on Monday, 13 October 2008 16:35:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 13 October 2008 16:35:16 GMT