Re: Responses to LC comments DA1 and SR1

I've made this change to the page.

peter


From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Responses to LC comments DA1 and SR1
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 14:30:12 -0500

> I'm fine with this approach, but would prefer we were a bit more
> friendly by doing as Bijan suggests and pointing them elsewhere.
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> <pfps@research.bell-labs.com> wrote:
>>
>> Given the comments against parts of the response, I suggest the
>> following minimalist response
>>
>>
> 
> The OWL WG was chartered to define OWL 2 and we consider guidance on
> best practice to be outside the charter of the group. Therefore  we
> will not be providing guidance in this area. We suggest that you might
> find it useful to discuss this in other fora such as
> 
>     public-owl-dev@w3.org
>     public-lod@w3.org
>     semantic-web@w3.org
> 
> -Alan
> 
> 
>>
>>
>> peter
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
>> Subject: Re: Responses to LC comments DA1 and SR1
>> Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 11:57:23 -0500
>>
>> > On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 9:34 AM, Michael Schneider<schneid@fzi.de> wrote:
>> >> Hi!
>> >>
>> >> My 2 cents:
>> >>
>> >> * [SR1]:
>> >>
>> >> I agree that such kinds of guidelines are off-scope for us.
>> >>
>> >> However, I think that the following sentence does not fully
>> >> answer to the comment:
>> >>
>> >> [[
>> >> Further, the imports mechanism of OWL provides a means
>> >> for really pointing back to the document or documents
>> >> that provide the current defining characteristics of a term.
>> >> ]]
>> >>
>> >> The imports mechanism relates whole ontologies, not single
>> >> terms (classes and properties). Therefore, I suggest to
>> >> remove this sentence from the response.
>> >
>> > In addition, although the reader use the definite article "the" for
>> > defining document, the documentation for isDefinedBy has no such
>> > restriction: http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_isdefinedby
>> >
>> > Therefore I would rather omit that part too, or have the rdfs spec own
>> > that there might be more than one, rather than the WG.
>> >
>> > Also, arguably, since we mention isDefinedBy in our specifications,
>> > it's not out of the question that someone might expect us to have an
>> > opinion about its use.
>> >
>> > How about:
>> >
>> > The working group notes that it is the RDF Schema that defines the
>> > property rdfs:isDefinedBy[1], as follows:
>> >
>> > rdfs:isDefinedBy is an instance of rdf:Property that is used to
>> > indicate a resource defining the subject resource. This property may
>> > be used to indicate an RDF vocabulary in which a resource is
>> > described.
>> > A triple of the form: "S rdfs:isDefinedBy O" states that the resource
>> > O defines S. It may be possible to retrieve representations of O from
>> > the Web, but this is not required. When such representations may be
>> > retrieved, no constraints are placed on the format of those
>> > representations. rdfs:isDefinedBy is a subproperty of rdfs:seeAlso.
>> >
>> > Giving guidance that modifies the existing specification is outside
>> > our charter. We note, however, that the current documentation does not
>> > imply that there be a single value for the property, that having the
>> > target of rdfs:isDefinedBy be both the OntologyIRI and the VersionIRI
>> > in separate statements does not therefore seem inconsistent with the
>> > documentation, and that because of this you might consider that the
>> > two options you present in your comment might not be exclusive of each
>> > other.
>> >
>> > ---
>> >
>> > We don't have to quote the definition from rdfs, but I don't see that it hurts.
>> >
>> > -Alan
>> >

Received on Monday, 22 June 2009 19:35:45 UTC