- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 16:18:23 -0500 (EST)
- To: public-owl-wg@w3.org
[Draft Response for LC Comment 62] JM1 Dear Jonas, Thank you for your message http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Feb/0010.html on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts. Your comment is related to another last-call comment http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/0059.html and this response is the essentially same as the relevant portion of the response to that comment, archived at .................... Naming data ranges is not possible in the functional syntax, and thus is not possible in OWL 2 DL. Some naming of data ranges could be permitted in OWL 2 DL, but one has to be careful about creating data range loops. The WG did not explore adding this extra syntax and extra complication to the functional syntax. In OWL 2 Full, it is of course possible to "name" a node that corresponds to a data range. This IRI could be used just as any other datatype/class IRI in OWL 2 Full with no problems. So you are not missing anything, at least so far as the functional syntax is concerned. Please acknowledge receipt of this email to <mailto:public-owl-comments@w3.org> (replying to this email should suffice). In your acknowledgment please let us know whether or not you are satisfied with the working group's response to your comment. Regards, Peter F. Patel-Schneider on behalf of the W3C OWL Working Group
Received on Thursday, 19 February 2009 21:18:31 UTC