W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webont-comments@w3.org > July 2004

Re: An inconsistency in OWL XML Presentation Syntax?

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 15:54:17 -0500
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: Motik@fzi.de, public-swbp-wg@w3.org, public-webont-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <1089665657.14421.120.camel@dirk>

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 Presentation
> > 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 other
> > 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 allows
> > 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 hasValue
> > 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 content
> > 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 working
> group has been disbanded.  I guess that the Semantic Web Coordination Group
> 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 have
> 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 Monday, 12 July 2004 16:54:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:09:30 UTC