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

Re: Changes to make S&AS consistent with RDF Semantics document

From: <herman.ter.horst@philips.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 18:55:16 +0100
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFC19EFFEB.3CA183AD-ONC1256DFD.0060E5DC-C1256DFD.00627D23@diamond.philips.com>


>> I would like to point out that there is no inconsistency between RDF 
>> and OWL S&AS.  There exists an inconsistency between S&AS and OWL Test.
>> As you noted, tests 201 to 205 would need reconsideration.
>I might be being a bit slow here ....
>OWL S&AS says that:
>  OWL DL datatype theories must contain xsd:string and xsd:integer and 
>contain other builtin datatypes (including rdf:XMLLiteral)
>  OWL Full datatype theories must contain xsd:integer and xsd:string
>Definition: Let D be a datatype map that includes datatypes for 
>and xsd:string. An OWL interpretation, I = < RI, PI, EXTI, SI, LI, LVI >, 
>a vocabulary V, where V includes the RDF and RDFS vocabularies and the 
>vocabulary, is a D-interpretation of V that satisfies all the constraints 
>this section. 
>The latter can be read with an understood "in addition to rdf:XMLLiteral" 

>which is required from RDF semantics


>If we take this reading of OWL S&AS, which I (as an individual - not as 
>nor as HP rep) could go along with 

This is the only reading that one can make of the current
version of S&AS.  The inclusion of semantic conditions from RDF Semantics
implies that rdf:XMLLiteral should be understood to be included here as 

>then this suggests that the following part 
>of OWL test is misleading in the same way as the quoted para from OWL 
>current text
>The datatype theory of an OWL consistency checker MUST minimally support 
>least xsd:integer, xsd:string from [XML Schema Datatypes]. 
>could read
>The datatype map of an OWL consistency checker MUST minimally support at 
>xsd:integer, xsd:string from [XML Schema Datatypes], and for an OWL Full 
>consistency checker, also rdf:XMLLiteral.

The current text that you quote here is indeed misleading.
I would add here, in addition to OWL Full as you do, also OWL DL, in view 
of what I remarked today about 'solution 1' [1].

>Of the tests I believe that only misc-205 is an issue.
>This would need to be changed from being valid in Lite and Full (and 
>also DL), to being a Lite (and implicitly DL) but not Full test.
>If we were wanting to be totally minimalist then we could say that Herman 

>appears to be proposing a change to miscellaneous-205 of 
>s/Lite Full/Lite/
>and corresponding change to the Manifest file.

Tests 201 and 202 and 204 (already in the medium version of Test)
speak of the case that rdf:XMLLiteral is *not* supported.
It seems to me that this text (and thereby these tests) should also 
be adapted, to become consistent with what I describe as 
'solution 4' in [1], which appears to be the only viable solution
which makes S&AS and OWL Test consistent.



[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Dec/0058.html
Received on Monday, 15 December 2003 12:55:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:56 UTC