W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > April 2009

Re: Invitation for review of POWDER documents (Last Call)

From: Phil Archer <phil@philarcher.org>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 10:16:26 +0100
Message-ID: <49E6F76A.4040209@philarcher.org>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
CC: Stasinos Konstantopoulos <konstant@iit.demokritos.gr>, W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Thanks Ivan and OWL WG members,

This is helpful. No need to apologise for not seeing this earlier. The 
relevant section is provided as an informative look ahead rather than 
anything that will break POWDER as currently specified. It's good to 
have it right.

Stasinos is heading for lamb-roasting and other Orthodox traditions and 
so my guess is that this will be looked at fully next week.



Ivan Herman wrote:
> Dear Phil,
> thanks for your note. We have indeed found some problems in section 4.6
> of http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-powder-formal-20090403/ which needs
> updates. They are as follows.
> - The reference should be to XSD1.1 and not XSD2:
>       http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-2/
> - 'At the time of writing, the OWL-2' should say "OWL 2" (ie, no hyphen)
> - The reference to OWL 2 currently points to the OWL 2 Primer. We think
> it would be better if it pointed at the (new) OWL 2 Document Overview:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-overview/
> - The semantic condition refers to rdfs:Resource for the domain of
> hasIRI. Although the description refers to an extension of the RDF
> semantics, it makes use of, say, owl:DatatypeProperty. Hence it may be
> stylistically better to refer to owl:Thing.
> - The encoding of the condition in the example has several problems,
> partially due to some recent changes in OWL 2. These are:
>     - namespace changes (OWL 2 refers to xsd:pattern directly and not
> owl:pattern (OWL 2 reuses rdfs:Datatype instead of owl:datarange)
>     - we also think that the type of restriction used is inappropriate.
> owl:hasValue should refer to a single individual and not to a
> datatype/datarange. Based on the rest of the POWDER semantics, what you
> probably have to use is owl:allValuesFrom, but this is something you
> have to decide, of course
>     - the RDF mapping of facets is based on a list of blank nodes
> instead of the approach used in the current code
> The first example (the second has similar structure) should look
> something like:
> <owl:Restriction>
>   <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="....#hasIRI"/>
>   <owl:allValuesFrom>
>     <rdfs:Datatype>
>       <owl:onDatatype rdf:resource="...#string"/>
>       <owl:withRestrictions rdf:parseType="Collection">
>         <rdf:Description>
>           <xsd:pattern rdf:datatype="...#string">PATTERN</xsd:pattern>
>         </rdf:Description>
>       </owl:withRestrictions>
>     <rdfs:Datatype>
>   </owl:allValuesFrom>
> </owl:Restriction>
> We are sorry not to have spotted this issue earlier.
> Sincerely
> Ivan
> (In the name of the OWL 2 Working Group)
> Phil Archer wrote:
>> Dear OWL and DAWG Team contacts and chairs,
>> You may well have seen the more formal announcement of this that I sent
>> to the chairs list earlier (copied below). Bijan rightly pointed out
>> that you should also be alerted to this.
>> Our Formal Semantics document
>> (http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-powder-formal-20090403/) has already
>> received substantial review and is regarded (by us!) as stable. It does,
>> however, make an informative reference to OWL 2 in section 4.6 which,
>> AFIAK, hasn't elicited any comment. Section 5 also includes some
>> (normative) SPARQL queries. Any comment on these sections would be
>> particularly welcome from your groups.
>> Copy of original announcement below.
>> Thanks for your help.
>> Phil.
>> The POWDER Working Group has been developing a suite of documents that
>> specify a protocol for publishing descriptions of Web resources. The
>> documents have already had wide review and the group has running code.
>> However, an internal team review of one document has prompted the
>> working group to make a third Last Call announcement, highlighting one
>> particular area.
>> * POWDER: Grouping of Resources
>>   http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-powder-grouping-20090403/
>> includes sections on IRI canonicalization (section 2.1.3 - 2.1.5) and it
>> is this that we are keen to ensure is correct.
>> Two other Recommendations Track documents have undergone editorial
>> changes since the previous Last Call (made in November 2008) and no
>> substantive changes are expected to be made before the group seeks
>> transition to Proposed Recommendation. They are:
>> * POWDER: Formal Semantics
>>   http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-powder-formal-20090403/
>> * POWDER: Description Resources
>>   http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-powder-dr-20090403/
>> The Working Group has also published two updated Working Drafts that are
>> expected to become Working Group Notes:
>> * POWDER: Primer
>>   http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/NOTE-powder-primer-20090403/
>> * POWDER: Test Suite
>>   http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/NOTE-powder-test-20090403/
>> We welcome feedback on these publications through to Monday 27th April
>> as well.


Phil Archer

i-sieve technologies                |      W3C Mobile Web Initiative
Making Sense of the Buzz            |      www.w3.org/Mobile
Received on Thursday, 16 April 2009 09:16:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:41:58 UTC