W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > April 2003

Re: Proposed reply to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webont-comments/2003Apr/0029.html

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 08:59:54 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20030423.085954.132766064.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: connolly@w3.org
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Proposed reply to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webont-comments/2003Apr/0029.html
Date: 14 Apr 2003 21:23:04 -0500

> On Mon, 2003-04-14 at 12:30, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> > I propose the following reply and changes to partly address
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webont-comments/2003Apr/0029.html
> > from Jeff Pan.
> 
> At least one part of it seems wrong to me; I'm not insprired
> with replacement text just now, but...
> 
> >   As stated in the response, final resolution awaits the
> > final version of RDF datatyping, which is not yet in a form that is usable
> > in OWL. 
> > 
> > peter
> > 
> > 
> > Again, thank you for your comments.   In this message I propose some
> > editorial and tyopgraphical changes that I think might help to address
> > some of them.  The remainder will be handled later, as indicated in the message.
> > 
> > > 1. Section 2
> > > 
> > > Section 2 claims that OWL uses some of the facilities of XML Schema, and some
> > > built-in XML Schema datatypes can be used in OWL. It is not clear, however,
> > > whether the derived datatypes based on the above supported XML Schema datatypes
> > > can be used in OWL or not. Reasons for why they can (or can't) be used in OWL are
> > > expected to be explained in section 2 as well.
> > 
> > Yes, this is not currently clear.  I propose to make the following
> > editorial addtion to the paragraph in Section 2 that talks about the usable
> > XML Schema datatypes:
> > 
> > 	Because there is no reliable way to go from a URI reference to an
> > 	XML Schema datatype in an XML Schema,
> 
> I can think of several reliable mechanisms. The issue is
> endorsement/standardization, not existence.
> 
> >  user-defined XML Schema
> > 	datatypes cannot be used in OWL.
> 
> I think they can be used; we don't guarantee that they'll
> work, but we don't/shouldn't specify that they cannot work either.
> 
> I'll try to think of better words presently.
> 
> [...]


I propose 


	Because there is no standard way to go from a URI reference to an
	XML Schema datatype in an XML Schema, there is no standard way to
	use user-defined XML Schema in OWL.

peter
Received on Wednesday, 23 April 2003 09:00:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:58 GMT