Re: draft response for LC comment 62 JM1

Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> 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.
> 

I would like to understand... OWL 2 DL (though nowhere defined in the
current documents:-( is equal to OWL 2 with Direct Semantics, isn't
(modulo the necessary restrictions). ??

Ivan

> 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

-- 

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