Re: Response to the review comments of the Syntax document, Sections 3--8

On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 1:16 PM, Boris Motik
<boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk> wrote:

> @Mike, Section 4: Much of this section details the semantics of datatypes. As such, it seems appropriate to move much of it to the
> semantics document.
>
> I've been thinking about it. The problem, however, is that we define here both the syntax and the semantics of the datatypes; hence,
> it is not clear that this should really belong to the semantics document. Another problem is that, whereas most people won't be
> interested in the details of the OWL 2 semantics, they will most likely be interested in the datatype map, including the details of
> the value spaces of different datatypes. For example, modelers will need to know precisely what the value space of owl:realPlus is.
> I thought of describing the datatypes in an intuitive way here and presenting the datatype map in the semantics document. After some
> thinking about it, though, I noticed that the intuitive description of the datatypes is of a rather limited utility (you need to be
> precise), and that it would additionally bloat the spec.
>
> To summarize, it seems to me that we might want to keep this section in the Syntax document.

Your response is consistent with a broader view of the goals of this
document than what I'd entered the review with.  My narrower view
caused me to comment on the number and detail of examples and the
detail of key semantics, both of which you commented on.

It seems the rest of the group is comfortable with the document have a
broader scope than just structure and syntax, so I'm comfortable with
your response above (and for the key discussion in Section 9.4).

-- 
Mike Smith

Clark & Parsia

Received on Monday, 15 September 2008 15:00:09 UTC