Re: [LC response] To Thomas Lörtsch Re: comments on the owl 2 last call

Hello Working Group, hello Peter,

thank you for your response! I am satisfied with this the working  
groups response to my comment. The clarifications have helped and I'm  
glad to hear that the rdf:XMLLiteral datatype has a good chance of  
making it into the recommendation.

Thanks for all the hard work!
Thomas Lörtsch

Am 18.05.2009 um 14:40 schrieb Peter F.Patel-Schneider:

> Dear Thomas,
> Thank you for your comment
>     < 
> >
> on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts.
> Primer:
> The primer has undergone considerable revision, and is about to be
> released as a "Last Call" working draft. A primer is, by its very
> nature, susceptible to being pulled in very many different
> directions. Producing a primer that satisfies everyone's needs would  
> not
> be possible given the Working Group's resource constraints, and is
> probably not possible at all. The Working Group therefore decided to
> focus on producing a short language primer. We expect that additional
> Primer-like documents will be produced by third parties, as has been  
> the
> case with OWL.
> Other Introductory Documents:
> The remit of the Working group is primarily one of language
> specification, hence the technical nature of most documents. The  
> Working
> Group is already struggling with document overload and resource
> limits. The Working Group feels that the Primer and Quick Reference
> Guide provide an adequate introduction to OWL 2, and believes that  
> it is
> appropriate for additional user-facing documents to be produced  
> outside
> the Working Group.
> Syntactic Variations:
> One reason for the various syntaxes for OWL is that the "main" syntax
> (RDF/XML) is difficult to use, and in particular difficult to use for
> specification. The Functional syntax serves just this purpose: precise
> specification of the constructs of the language and their semantics.  
> The
> other syntaxes satisfy other requirements, in particular compatibility
> with XML tool chains (the XML syntax) and ease of reading/writing (the
> Manchester syntax). Developing (syntax conversion) tools is outside  
> the
> remit of the Working Group. Such tools are, however, already being
> developed by third parties; see, for example, the OWL API
> <>.
> rdf:XMLLiteral:
> This datatype is listed as at-risk because the current known
> implementations for OWL 2 or variants thereof may not fully implement
> this feature. The Working Group expects that during the Candidate
> Recommentation phase (coming shortly), implementations will indeed be
> produced for rdf:XMLLiteral and its "at risk" status will be removed.
> RDF reification vocabulary:
> There are technical reasons not to use the RDF reification vocabulary,
> having to do with wanting an even weaker formal semantics, and
> perception reasons not to use the RDF reification vocabulary, having  
> to
> do with diverging intended meanings for the RDF reification
> vocabulary. Therefore, the Working Group is unwilling to use the RDF
> reification vocabulary.
> New namespace:
> The Working Group feels that OWL 2 is the "new" OWL, and OWL 2 is
> backwards compatible with OWL. There are also significant costs to
> having a separate namespace for OWL 2 (for example, writing qualified
> cardinality restrictions would be problematical). For these reasons  
> the
> Working Group decided that OWL 2 should not have a new namespace.
> Please acknowledge receipt of this email to
> <> (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,
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> on behalf of the W3C OWL Working Group

Received on Monday, 18 May 2009 19:06:16 UTC