- From: Evan Wallace <ewallace@cme.nist.gov>
- Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 14:37:06 -0500
- To: public-owl-wg@w3.org
All, Peter has proposed a response to the questions about the absence of named data ranges as follows: > Naming data ranges is not possible in the functional syntax. Named data > ranges can cause problems in the direct semantics if there are loops in > the definitions. Because of this kind of problem the WG did not do much > exploration of adding named data ranges to the functional syntax. > > In OWL 2 Full, it is of course possible to "name" a node that > corresponds to a data range, so in the above triples, the blank node > with label _:x could be replaced with a regular node with IRI > ex:GreaterThan65. This IRI could be used just as any other > datatype/class IRI in OWL 2 Full. However, named user defined datatypes are a critical capability for OWL DL that I had expected to see in OWL 2. I think we should support them, if we can. We rather rushed past this discussion at the face-to-face on Monday afternoon/evening as people were understandably tired of datatype discussions at that point. Let's please discuss this a bit before rejecting such a basic feature. -Evan Evan K. Wallace Manufacturing Systems Integration Division NIST
Received on Tuesday, 3 March 2009 19:37:52 UTC