On 12 Sep 2008, at 11:02, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: > The OWL specification has a datatype map as a parameter. It's > unclear to me what are allowable extensions in the realm of > datatypes, and whether such extensions would be desirable from an > interoperability point of view. Now that we have a wide range of > datatypes, do we need to support extensibility here? Yes. > Our experience OWL 1, OWL 2, that choice and semantics of datatypes > are not a slam-dunk obvious choice, raising questions about whether > sanctioned extensions to OWL in this dimension would be beneficial > or cause more trouble than they are worth. Of course nothing would > prevent unsanctioned extensions - my question here is of what we > should encourage. The core problem with OWL 1 wasn't that it sanctioned extensions, but that it underspecified the set of datatypes but *seemed* to spec them by way of the XML Schema spec. Hence interop problems on the *very same datatypes*. But we have a *much* better spec now and I think allowing for extensions is a good idea. I intend to introduce some e.g., via OWLED. I don't see it's a problem, certainly not the *same* problem. BTW, this is another instance where the owl:x-foo idea would be helpful. Cheers, Bijan.Received on Friday, 12 September 2008 15:29:15 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:41:51 UTC