- From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 11:14:16 +0100
- To: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, <schneid@fzi.de>, <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Thanks for the useful discussion on the responses. I made a further small adjustment by simply deleting the "Therefore we aren't doing it" sentence, which seemed superfluous. Both responses look good to me. Baring any further last minute comments I believe that they are ready to go. Peter -- if there is no more discussion by end of business today can you please send them off. Thanks, Ian On 22 Jun 2009, at 20:31, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > 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 Friday, 26 June 2009 10:15:01 UTC