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

Re: possible compromise on rdf:XMLLiteral

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 11:22:09 -0500
Message-Id: <200312191622.hBJGM9NW019958@roke.hawke.org>
To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org

Jeremy Carroll:
> This is the compromise proposal that I offered to put together.
> My belief is that this is unnecessary and I am happy with the documents as
> they are, complete with minor technical flaw. I would also be happy with the
> documents with this fix - but not if this change is one which puts at risk
> OWL reaching recommendation.
> I believe this proposal is a (small) technical improvement.
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/PR-owl-test-20031215/#consistencyChecker
> Add between the definition of "OWL Full consistency checker" and "complete
> OWL Lite consistency checker" a new paragraph as follows.
> [[
> The datatype map of an OWL Full consistency checker MUST also support
> rdf:XMLLiteral from [RDF Concepts].
> ]]

I worry about the implementation burden here.  Jos, and other
implementors of OWL Full consistency checkers: do you plan to
implement support for XML Literal?  I'm not clear anymore what work is
really entailed here.  I heard on the call that c14n equivalence was
no longer needed, but that well-formedness-checking was.

> b) Modify test miscellaneous-205 by deletion of the word "Full" from its
> levels box.
> Corresponding modifications to the manifest file for the test, and the
> master manifest file.

I'd think another test should be added which is "Full" only and has
the opposite conclusion. 

> Test miscellaneous-205 was passed by FOWL, Pellet, OWLP, Hoolet and failed
> by  Consvisor. The related test miscellaneous-204 was passed by Pellet,
> Consvisor and Euler. OWLP, Pellet and Hoolet being explicitly OWL DL
> reasoners continue to pass test miscellaneous-205 appropriately. Consvisor
> being an OWL Full system which supports rdf:XMLLiteral already conforms with
> this implicit constraint of the OWL PR. It is unclear whether FOWL is an OWL
> DL or OWL Full reasoner, if the latter, then the change in the test metadata
> clarifies that they should implement the rdf:XMLLiteral datatype.
> ]]
> (It is not clear to me if the last para is appropriate in the change log).

It does seem odd, but I like it a lot.    Except maybe we can ask the
F-OWL folks [1] what they have in mind.

     -- sandro

[1] http://fowl.sourceforge.net/about.html
Received on Friday, 19 December 2003 11:22:33 UTC

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