- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 05:07:06 -0500 (EST)
- To: ivan@w3.org
- Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
I believe that your changes are less accurate and less true than the original. I tried to be very careful to craft a response that was accurate no matter how any naming issues are resolved. In particular, it is not a good idea to refer to the direct semantics here. peter From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> Subject: Re: draft response for LC comment 62 JM1 Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 09:47:35 +0100 > Until our naming issue is solved, the exact relationships of OWL DL, > Full, FS are still a bit fuzzy and not 100% clear in the current > documents. Also, your first sentence also suggests some sort of a > primary role of syntax over DL:-( > > May I suggest a slight re-write? Like: > > [[[ > Some naming of data ranges could be permitted in the Direct Semantics of > OWL 2, but one has to be careful about creating data range loops. The WG > did not explore adding this functionality and hence adding this extra > syntax and extra complication to the functional syntax. > > In the RDF syntax, and hence in the RDF bases semantics of OWL 2, 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 the RDF > based semantics OWL 2 with no problems. > > So you are not missing anything, at least so far as the functional > syntax is concerned. > ]]] > > Cheers > > Ivan > > > Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: >> [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 >> > > -- > > Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead > Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ > mobile: +31-641044153 > PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html > FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Friday, 20 February 2009 10:07:07 UTC