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

Re: proposed response to Jeff Pan's response of 23 June concerning datatypes

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 15:57:00 -0400
Message-Id: <p05200f04bb1d0af8ff52@[10.0.1.2]>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, www-webont-wg@w3.org

Got it Dan, thanks.

Based on Jeff's comment, Peter's response and John Borden's comments 
on it, I don't see new evidence for us to reopen this issue.


I might suggest to the editor that he consider John Borden's suggestion that

At 1:55 PM -0400 6/23/03, Jonathan Borden wrote:
>The issue of URIreferences for XML Schema particles, in this case datatypes,
>is significantly more complex than initially meets the eye. The XML Schema
>WG is considering this issue, and we should state (at most) that OWL will
>defer to the mechanism created by XML Schema WG, or simply punt on the issue
>(which is what we decided.)

and consider adding a statement to the effect that if XML schema 
proposes a standard mechanism for user defined datatypes, then it 
should be used by OWL implementations (and this would likely satisfy 
Pan).  However, since I, like most of you, am nervous about buying 
that pig in a poke, I can live with the status quo.

Peter, I don't think a WG decision is needed.  If, after this set of 
messages, you wish to change your message to Jeff or add something to 
the editor's draft, that is fine - but otherwise I'd say send your 
message (and you can add a pointer to Jonathan's if you wish)

  -JH






At 1:52 PM -0500 6/23/03, Dan Connolly wrote:
>On Mon, 2003-06-23 at 12:55, Jim Hendler wrote:
>>  At 12:36 PM -0500 6/23/03, Dan Connolly wrote:
>[...]
>>  >
>>  >The WG made a relevant decision, no?
>>  >
>>  >Yes... on issue 5.8 datatypes, Dec 12
>>  >http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#I5.8-Datatypes
>>  >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Dec/0205.html
>>  >
>>  >So there's a question of whether Jeff Pan's comment constitutes
>>  >sufficient new information to re-open the decision.
>>  >
>>  >I don't feel confident speaking for the chairs on this matter,
>>  >so I can't authorize you to send this on behalf of the WG,
>>  >Peter.
>>
>>
>>  This chair (who is making up the agenda) must admit to a certain
>>  confusion - what in Peter's response is inconsistent with our
>>  decision?
>
>Nothing; I didn't mean to say he's not being consistent.
>I just mean to say that the WG hasn't delegated this
>matter to the editor. Peter essentially read from
>the WG record to Jeff in his reply of 16Jun
>
>   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.
>   --
>http://www.w3.org/mid/20030616.103019.119356224.pfps@research.bell-labs.com
>
>but that didn't satisfy Jeff:
>
>   I am not sure about this. ...
>   --
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webont-comments/2003Jun/0065.html
>
>But it's not up to Peter to continue the negotiation;
>this isn't between the commentor and the editor;
>it's between the commentor and the WG.
>
>So the next step is up to the WG, esp. the chairs: does Jeff's
>latest message cause us to reconsider our position?
>
>
>>    That is, I don't see what is inconsistent with our decision to
>>  accept parts 1,2,  and 5 of [1]
>>
>>  >
>>  >Jim/Guus, please consider this; some options I see:
>>  >
>>  > --  let us know before sending out this week's agenda that
>>  >  you don't see sufficient information to open it, or
>>  >
>>  > -- re-open the issue and put it on this week's agenda
>>  >
>>  > -- put it on this week's agenda to solicit advice about
>>  >  reopening it, or to discuss the response, or whatever.
>>
>>
>>
>>  anyway, before I can reconsider the issue, I'm not sure what the
>>  distinction is (or are you postulating we could adopt Jeff's
>>  suggestion and use the user-defined type as he proposes, despite
>>  Peter's response)?
>
>Yes, the chair could re-open issue 5.6 and the WG could decide to adopt
>Jeff's suggestion.
>
>
>>  I'm not trying to be contentious, I'm really just confused
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >oops; did I ever do this?
>>  >"NEW ACTION Dan - to communicate with XML schema group about URIs for
>>  >XML datatypes."?
>>
>>  I believe that was withdrawn at some point (my personal notes say it
>>  was either going to be a tag or CG issue) - but I don't see that in a
>>  recorded minutes, so not sure why I came to believe that
>>
>>
>>   -JH
>>
>>
>>  >
>>  >Hmm...
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >--
>>  >Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
>>
>>
>>  [1]
>>  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Nov/0265.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
>>  ***
>--
>Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/

-- 
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 Monday, 23 June 2003 15:57:12 GMT

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