- From: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
- Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 00:15:36 +0100
- To: "W3C OWL Working Group" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <0EF30CAA69519C4CB91D01481AEA06A001071803@judith.fzi.de>
>-----Original Message----- >From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org] >On Behalf Of Michael Schneider >Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 10:48 PM >To: Boris Motik >Cc: W3C OWL Working Group >Subject: RE: A proposal for addressing LC comment 58 (fully typed >functional-style syntax) > >Hi! > >AFAICT, this would mean that many documents need a large revision: > >* Structural Spec >* OWL/XML >* Direct Semantics >* RDF Mapping >* Profiles >* Test Cases >* the UFDs that use Functional Syntax > >This would also mean that I would have to rework the proof of the >correspondence theorem between OWL 2 DL and OWL 2 Full in the RDF-Based >Semantics, and actually the whole (long!) Section 7 there. This may be a >lot >of work for me, that does not have any advantage for the RDF-Based >Semantics. I would not be happy with this additional burden. > >We had a decision on this almost a year from now, after long email >discussions, and no one seemed to be exceptionally unhappy with this. In >particular, AFAIR (I might be wrong) Matthew was even a guest at F2F2. >I'd >say that the disadvantages on the implementer's side do not outweigh the >additional burden on the (now small active part of the) WG. > >I propose to deny the requested change. > >Michael Just to be clear: This is a /proposal/, I do /not/ insist on this, i.e., I won't formally object if we decide to switch back to "typed syntax". In fact, I would not even consider my reworking of the correspondence section in the RDF-based Semantics a design change, and I certainly will go on refining my proof there for quite a while, anyway, because there is certainly still much room for refinement. :) So there would not be too much delay, and also probably no danger of a second LC for the RDF-Based Semantics. But, unlike Boris, I cannot really say that I sympathize with this comment, so I would also like to hear serious comments from others how they feel. I would argue that both solutions, strongly typed FS and mandatory declarations, are appropriate solutions, so I would be inclined to keep with what we have now, given that this will take quite some working group effort in order to be implemented, and we all have a lot of other (and probably more important) things to do. Best, Michael -- Dipl.-Inform. Michael Schneider Research Scientist, Dept. Information Process Engineering (IPE) Tel : +49-721-9654-726 Fax : +49-721-9654-727 Email: schneid@fzi.de WWW : http://www.fzi.de/ipe/eng/mitarbeiter.php?id=555 ============================================================================ == FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik an der Universität Karlsruhe Haid-und-Neu-Str. 10-14, D-76131 Karlsruhe Tel.: +49-721-9654-0, Fax: +49-721-9654-959 Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts Stiftung Az: 14-0563.1 Regierungspräsidium Karlsruhe Vorstand: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Rüdiger Dillmann, Dipl. Wi.-Ing. Michael Flor, Prof. Dr. rer. nat. Dr. h.c. Wolffried Stucky, Prof. Dr. rer. nat. Rudi Studer Vorsitzender des Kuratoriums: Ministerialdirigent Günther Leßnerkraus ============================================================================ ==
Received on Thursday, 19 February 2009 23:16:18 UTC