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

Re: Proposed response to Dave Reynolds on dataranges

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2003 13:50:49 -0400
Message-Id: <p05200f16bb49c1611fb1@[10.0.1.3]>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org

Ian - this looks okay to me, send it.

At 12:15 PM -0400 7/27/03, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>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

-- 
Professor James Hendler				  hendler@cs.umd.edu
Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies	  301-405-2696
Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab.	  301-405-6707 (Fax)
Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742	  *** 240-277-3388 (Cell)
http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler      *** NOTE CHANGED CELL NUMBER ***
Received on Sunday, 27 July 2003 13:51:03 GMT

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