- From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
- Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 18:45:27 -0400
- To: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Cc: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, "'Alan Ruttenberg'" <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, "'OWL 1.1'" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
thanks, I know we had resolved this, and that we had said it was an editorial clarification, I just wanted to be sure we weren't missing anything process-wise - sounds to me like the bases were covered - as a former WG chair, I know that things like this can get cnfusing in the final stages - wanted to be sure it didn't introduce delays. -JH On Jul 28, 2009, at 6:39 PM, Ian Horrocks wrote: > The WG (including Ivan and Sandro) discussed and resolved on this > already -- see [1]. What I was reporting was simply the completion > of the relevant action [2]. The rationale is that the change is only > editorial, because we didn't change anything w.r.t. the overall spec > -- the MUST simply moved from Conformance to Syntax. > > My understanding is that we will report all such changes in the PR > versions of the documents. > > Let me know if you think we need to do something more. > > Regards, > Ian > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2009-07-01#resolution_2 > [2] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/actions/344 > > > > On 28 Jul 2009, at 22:20, Jim Hendler wrote: > >> I hate to be a stickler for process, but this seems like it is >> slightly more than just a bug fix (esp. as it, appropriately, >> removes a MUST clause) - to be clear, I think this is a good change >> and I think it does not invalidate a move to CR, but we should ask >> our team reps (Ivan and Sandro) to make sure we are compliant with >> process and do whatever notification we need to do (if any) so that >> we can move ahead -- I think it may just need to be added as a note >> in the CR documentation (that we made this clarifying change), but >> at this late date let's be sure to dot our i's and cross our t's >> (as the expression goes) >> -JH >> >> >> On Jul 28, 2009, at 6:09 AM, Ian Horrocks wrote: >> >>> It might be worth adding that this was exactly the motivation for >>> the clarification/cleanup. As things stood before, the concept >>> language was precisely defined in Syntax/Profiles, and Conformance >>> simply said that conformant systems had to support the concept >>> language as defined in those documents; in contrast the datatype >>> language was relatively loosely defined (or at least allowed for >>> some variability), and Conformance "fixed" this by stating that >>> conformant systems must support all OWL 2 datatypes. This was >>> clearly undesirable -- important parts of the language >>> specification should not be "hidden" in Conformance. >>> >>> The result of the clarification is that Syntax/Profiles now >>> precisely define the datatype part of the language just as for the >>> concept part. Conformance can thus simply say that conformant >>> systems must support the language as defined in Syntax/Profiles. >>> >>> Ian >>> >>> >>> On 28 Jul 2009, at 07:43, Boris Motik wrote: >>> >>>> Hello, >>>> >>>> While it is true that this sentence was removed, I don't think >>>> that anything has >>>> been lost from the normative point of view. >>>> >>>> The Syntax document now defines in Section 4 the OWL 2 datatype >>>> map as a fixed >>>> set of datatypes; then, in Section 5 it says that people can use >>>> these datatypes >>>> in OWL 2 ontologies. Datatypes are now just like any other >>>> construct: they are a >>>> fixed part of the language. Saying something like "an OWL 2 tool >>>> must support >>>> all OWL 2 datatypes" is thus tantamount to saying "an OWL 2 tool >>>> must support >>>> all OWL 2 class constructors". >>>> >>>> The sentence you refer to has been introduced because things have >>>> not been like >>>> this earlier: the set of datatypes was not fixed and we initially >>>> allowed for a >>>> pick-and-mix approach. Since this is now completely gone from all >>>> parts of the >>>> Syntax document (as well as the other documents), I really don't >>>> think anything >>>> special needs to be said about the support for datatypes: they >>>> need to be >>>> supported in their entirety just like any other part of the >>>> language. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Boris >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org >>>>> ] On >>>>> Behalf Of Alan Ruttenberg >>>>> Sent: 28 July 2009 04:30 >>>>> To: Ian Horrocks >>>>> Cc: OWL 1.1; Boris Motik >>>>> Subject: Re: A proposal for clarifying the definitions of >>>>> datatype maps, take >>>>> II >>>>> >>>>> I may have missed something, however it appears that these >>>>> changes, >>>>> while clarifying the meaning of the datatypes in the OWL 2 >>>>> Datatype >>>>> map, also remove a strong constraint - namely that OWL 2 DL >>>>> tools MUST >>>>> support all the types in that datatype map. >>>>> >>>>> In particular: >>>>> >>>>> "OWL 2 tools <em title="MUST in RFC 2119 context" >>>>> class="RFC2119">MUST</em> support the OWL 2 datatype map >>>>> described in >>>>> the rest of this section. " >>>>> >>>>> has been removed. >>>>> >>>>> I don't believe that Boris' original note suggested this would >>>>> be the case. >>>>> >>>>> I'd appreciate some clarification on this matter. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Alan >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 4:52 PM, Ian >>>>> Horrocks<ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk> wrote: >>>>>> As you will recall, the WG approved Boris's proposal during the >>>>>> 1st July >>>>>> teleconf [1]. Completing the necessary work has taken a while >>>>>> -- entirely my >>>>>> fault for being slow to do the necessary work on Conformance. >>>>>> >>>>>> To summarise, Boris has clarified the definition of datatypes >>>>>> and the OWL >>>>>> datatype map in Syntax. As a result, Conformance no longer >>>>>> needs to specify >>>>>> constraints on datatypes and the datatype map (e.g., that >>>>>> conformant tools >>>>>> must use the OWL 2 datatype map) -- the datatypes that can >>>>>> occur in >>>>>> (profile) documents and that must be supported by (profile) >>>>>> tools are now >>>>>> explicitly defined in Syntax and Profiles. The relevant diffs >>>>>> are: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Syntax&diff=24783&oldid=24704 >>>>>> >>>>> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Syntax&diff=24850&oldid=24798 >>>>>> >>>>> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Conformance&diff=24942&oldid=2 >>>>> 4877 >>>>>> >>>>>> Please let us know ASAP if you have any comments w.r.t. these >>>>>> changes. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> Ian >>>>>> >>>>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2009-07-01#resolution_2 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 29 Jun 2009, at 14:33, Boris Motik wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hello, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In April I've sent around the following e-mail, in which I've >>>>>>> proposed to >>>>>>> clarify certain definitions surrounding datatype maps: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Apr/0454.html >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please refer to my original e-mail for the details; in short, >>>>>>> the idea is >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> remove certain discrepancies between Conformance and the rest >>>>>>> of the >>>>>>> documents, >>>>>>> with Conformance being taken as a guideline. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I haven't pushed this forward earlier because we were getting >>>>>>> ready to go >>>>>>> into >>>>>>> CR. Since we've successfully reached that milestone, now seems >>>>>>> like a >>>>>>> perfect >>>>>>> time for improving the spec. Therefore, unless someone >>>>>>> objects, I would >>>>>>> make a >>>>>>> few editorial changes to the spec and inform the WG of the >>>>>>> outcome. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Boris >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, >> not because they are easy, but because they are hard - John F. >> Kennedy, Sept 12, 1962 >> >> Prof James Hendler http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~hendler, @jahendler, >> twitter >> Tetherless World Constellation Chair >> Computer Science Dept >> Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY 12180 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard - John F. Kennedy, Sept 12, 1962 Prof James Hendler http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~hendler, @jahendler, twitter Tetherless World Constellation Chair Computer Science Dept Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY 12180
Received on Tuesday, 28 July 2009 22:46:16 UTC