Re: Resolveability of owl:real and owl:rational

On Jan 17, 2020, at 07:45, Patrick J Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote:
>> On Jan 16, 2020, at 10:53 AM, Bijan Parsia <bijan.parsia@manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
>> 
>> On Jan 16, 2020, at 16:08, Patrick J Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Why on earth not? You are basically saying that it is not a good idea to document them.
>> 
>> As I participated in writing extensive documentation for them, that’s just obviously false.
>> 
>> This isn’t remotely a paraphrase, “basic” or not. 
> 
> Perhaps I should have been more careful in my phrasing. 

It would have been welcome. 

> Of course there is documentation. But my understanding of ‘best policy’ after the http-range-14 nonsense had subsided was that resolving a URI should either get you a representation of the thing denoted, ie the state of the website in ‘ordinary’ cases, or an explanation of what the URI is intended to denote. Which in this case would be the OWL ontology one does indeeed find, but which has these two items unaccountably missing from it. So someone (or something?) which is following the rules, so to speak, will not be directed to the documentation by resolving the URI. Which is regrettable, particularly is it would have been trivial to have done this properly. 

I don’t really remember what happened. There were enough people on the WG who bought into the story you described above that it’s plausible that it was an oversight. It might well have been that folks like me blocked updating it because we couldn’t delete it. 

I don’t think the marginal utility is high. It’s not hard at all to find the comprehensive documentation. I doubt we can get the W3C to set up redirects to the actual documentation (which would indeed be a bit of work). 

Cheers,
Bijan.

Received on Friday, 17 January 2020 08:01:49 UTC