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

Re: Proposed response to Dave Reynolds on dataranges

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2003 12:15:19 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20030727.121519.68552868.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk
Cc: hendler@cs.umd.edu, www-webont-wg@w3.org

Other than the typo pointed out below, this looks good to me.

peter


From: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
Subject: Proposed response to Dave Reynolds on dataranges
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2003 12:49:37 +0100

> 
> Here is a proposed response to Dave Beckett on his named datarange
> comment.
> 
> Ian
> 
> =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
> 
> Dave,
> 
> Thank you for your comments.
> 
> I will attempt to provide some further clarification regarding the
> WG's decision not to support naming of data ranges. The second part of
> your comment (regarding bNodes) is/will be dealt with separately.
> 
> The issue of named dataranges was discussed at the editors meeting in
> Boston. (see [1]). The following potential problems were identified:
> 
> 1. Clearly, we would like to have access in OWL to a full range of
> user-defined XML Schema datatypes derived from the built-in datatypes
> that can already be used in OWL (see [2]). This would include
> enumerated datatypes corresponding to OWL dataranges. We expect
> XML:Schema to ultimately provide a mechanism to support this. Naming
> dataranges in OWL would provide a "completing" mechanism (i.e.,
				     ^^^ competing?
> provide an alternative way to name user defined datatypes), and this
> could interact in an undesirable way with the XML:Schema mechanism as
> and when it is introduced.
> 
> 2. OWL DL is designed so as to allow reasoning about datatypes and
> values to be cleanly separated from reasoning about classes and
> individuals. Introducing OWL names for dataranges may compromise this
> design.
> 
> It was therefore decided not to include them in the language at
> present. It may be possible to add them in the future as and when a
> thorough investigation of the issues proves that they would not have
> any adverse effects.
> 
> 
> Please reply to this message as to whether this response is satisfactory,
> copying public-webont-wg@w3.org. Again, thank you for your comments.
> 
> Ian Horrocks
> 
> 
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Mar/0038.html
> [2] http://www-db.research.bell-labs.com/user/pfps/owl/semantics/semantics-all.html#2.1
> 
> 
> > Message-ID: <3F1E5386.A80B1974@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
> > Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 10:21:10 +0100
> > From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
> > To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
> > CC: public-webont-comments@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: OWL comment - blank nodes in OWL DL
> > 
> > 
> > Jim,
> > 
> > Thank you for your response to the Jena team comments on these issues.
> > Overall this response is not (yet) acceptable. 
> > 
> > (a) Issue: Named data ranges
> >      Your response: postpone
> > 
> > We understand that the working group cannot name user-defined XSD datatypes 
> > and that matter should be raised with the XML Schema working group.
> > 
> > Our concern was more one of uniformity - it seems possible to have both 
> > named and unnamed classes, why not data ranges? The more uniform a language 
> > is, the easier the API and the fewer the support calls.
> > 
> > As an example could this:
> > 
> > <owl:DataRange rdf:about="#MyDR">
> >     <owl:oneOf>
> >        <rdf:List>
> >          <rdf:first>foo</rdf:first>
> >          <rdf:rest rdf:resource="&rdf;nil"/>
> >        </rdf:List>
> >     </owl:oneOf>
> > </owl:DataRange>
> > 
> > be included in OWL DL, for greater uniformity with other unnamed things in 
> > OWL DL (which can optionally be named).
> > 
> > I confess to not understanding the research problems that you refer to as 
> > being raised by naming data ranges. If there is some non-trivial problem 
> > here then we certainly accept this is not a sufficiently important issue to 
> > warrant additional research at this stage in the process.
> > 
> > Has the WG discussed this question?
> > None of the three links you gave seemed directly related to our request:
> > [1]
> > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#I5.8-Datatypes
> > [2]
> > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#I4.3-Structured-Datatypes
> > [3]
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002May/0040.html
Received on Sunday, 27 July 2003 12:15:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:01 GMT