- From: Deborah L. McGuinness <dlm@ksl.stanford.edu>
- Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 14:56:46 -0500
- To: Evan Wallace <ewallace@cme.nist.gov>
- CC: public-owl-wg@w3.org
Evan Wallace wrote: > > 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. just as a data point, i have many science applications that could use. > > -Evan > > Evan K. Wallace > Manufacturing Systems Integration Division > NIST > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 3 March 2009 19:57:34 UTC