W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-comments@w3.org > March 2009

RE: [LC Response] To Ralf Moeller Re: OWL2

From: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 14:39:03 +0100
Message-ID: <0EF30CAA69519C4CB91D01481AEA06A0011326C7@judith.fzi.de>
To: "Ralf Moeller" <r.f.moeller@tu-harburg.de>
Cc: <public-owl-comments@w3.org>
Hello Ralf,

I am hereby forwarding your mail to the official list for LC comments


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ralf Moeller [mailto:r.f.moeller@tu-harburg.de]
>Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 1:45 PM
>To: Michael Schneider
>Subject: Re: [LC Response] To Ralf Moeller Re: OWL2
>Dear Michael,
>I would like to let you know that I cannot really be satisfied with
>the response.
>I have pointed out loose ends in OWL 2 that go back  to even looser
>ends in OWL 1.
>We should not bury our head in the sand and argue: We cannot change
>sth because
>this would break backward compatibility with OWL 1.
>Now it is the time to get up the nerve to do sth that appears to be a
>serious flaw :-)
>Best regards,
>On Feb 20, 2009, at 10:34 PM, Michael Schneider wrote:
>> Dear Ralf,
>> Thank you for your comments
>> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-
>> >
>> on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts.
>> Your mail actually contains three distinct comments. This response
>> exclusively covers your first comment. There will be additional
>> responses to your other two comments.
>> In your first comment, you state:
>> """
>> I strongly recommend to change the OWL2 specification in such a way
>> that data properties are always functional.
>> """
>> The working group acknowledges that by applying the approach
>> you mention in your comment it would indeed be sufficient
>> if all data properties would be functional.
>> However, the working group is aware of the fact that the
>> original OWL language did not restrict data properties to
>> be functional. Therefore, restricting data properties to be
>> functional in OWL 2 would break backwards compatibility with OWL.
>> For this reason, the working group has decided not to make
>> the requested change to OWL 2.
>> Please acknowledge receipt of this email to
>> <mailto:public-owl-comments@w3.org> (replying to this email should
>> suffice). In your acknowledgment please let us know whether or not you
>> are satisfied with the working group's response to your comment.
>> Regards,
>> Michael Schneider
>> on behalf of the W3C OWL Working Group

Received on Friday, 6 March 2009 13:39:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:40:21 UTC