- From: Evan Wallace <ewallace@cme.nist.gov>
- Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 11:47:12 -0400
- To: "'OWL Working Group WG'" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
All, Sorry I missed yesterday's call. Looking at the minutes I see that you did get to the discussion on Boris' datatypes issue. I have a few comments. Scientific use of OWL isn't the only place where datatype support is critical. It is also very important for engineering. Expanded datatype support is key to the uptake of OWL for product and process engineering applications. The extensions in OWL1.1 -> OWL 2 were a big improvement and the suggestion to add support for Real/Rational arithmetic is a great development for my domain. We do, however, need to be very clear about how this relates to exchange and computational types. Let me also underline Bijan's point about the proposal potentially affecting existing ontologies. I am currently involved in defining a "foundational" vocabulary with an associated ontology for Date and Time. We are hoping to reuse OWL Time for this. The OWL 1 rendering of OWL Time makes use of xsd types for a number of things including identifying a year and month for a time interval associated with a DateTimeDescription. It also carefully uses integer for datatype properties using ordinal numbers to identify say a day of the week or a week in a WeekYear calendar, while still using xsd decimal for seconds in a date-time. While it would probably be a good thing to change OWL Time, in any case, to make use of new constructs in OWL 2, we really need to understand what datatypes to use for these things if support for integer and xsd date types is discouraged. -Evan Evan K. Wallace Manufacturing Systems Integration Division NIST
Received on Thursday, 19 June 2008 15:48:04 UTC