Fwd: [LC Response] To Ralf Moeller Re: OWL2

This seems to me to be a rather similar situation to the one with  
Marijke, and we could make similar replies in the two cases:

- even if functional datatype/key properties are "the norm", one can  
easily imagine situations where modellers may want to use non- 
functional properties (e.g., Michael's example of multiple email  
addresses, where these are represented as a string);
- it is trivial for modellers to assert functionality if desired;
- we do not consider it to be appropriate for the WG to use the  
design of the language to impose subjective decisions about modelling  
style.

The only coherent argument that I can see on Ralf's side is an  
implementation one -- functional datatype properties would make  
implementation easier. This seems to be a rather week argument,  
particularly as several implementations already support general  
datatype properties.

Ian


Begin forwarded message:

> Resent-From: public-owl-comments@w3.org
> From: "Michael Schneider" <schneid@fzi.de>
> Date: 6 March 2009 13:39:03 GMT
> To: "Ralf Moeller" <r.f.moeller@tu-harburg.de>
> Cc: <public-owl-comments@w3.org>
> Subject: RE: [LC Response] To Ralf Moeller Re: OWL2
>
> Hello Ralf,
>
> I am hereby forwarding your mail to the official list for LC comments
> (<public-owl-comments@w3.org>).
>
> Regards,
> Michael
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ralf Moeller [mailto:r.f.moeller@tu-harburg.de]
>> Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 1:45 PM
>> To: Michael Schneider
>> Subject: Re: [LC Response] To Ralf Moeller Re: OWL2
>>
>> Dear Michael,
>>
>> I would like to let you know that I cannot really be satisfied with
>> the response.
>> I have pointed out loose ends in OWL 2 that go back  to even looser
>> ends in OWL 1.
>> We should not bury our head in the sand and argue: We cannot change
>> sth because
>> this would break backward compatibility with OWL 1.
>>
>> Now it is the time to get up the nerve to do sth that appears to be a
>> serious flaw :-)
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Ralf
>>
>> On Feb 20, 2009, at 10:34 PM, Michael Schneider wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Ralf,
>>>
>>> Thank you for your comments
>>> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-
>> comments/2009Jan/0059.html
>>>>
>>> on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts.
>>>
>>> Your mail actually contains three distinct comments. This response
>>> exclusively covers your first comment. There will be additional
>>> responses to your other two comments.
>>>
>>> In your first comment, you state:
>>>
>>> """
>>> I strongly recommend to change the OWL2 specification in such a way
>>> that data properties are always functional.
>>> """
>>>
>>> The working group acknowledges that by applying the approach
>>> you mention in your comment it would indeed be sufficient
>>> if all data properties would be functional.
>>>
>>> However, the working group is aware of the fact that the
>>> original OWL language did not restrict data properties to
>>> be functional. Therefore, restricting data properties to be
>>> functional in OWL 2 would break backwards compatibility with OWL.
>>>
>>> For this reason, the working group has decided not to make
>>> the requested change to OWL 2.
>>>
>>> Please acknowledge receipt of this email to
>>> <mailto:public-owl-comments@w3.org> (replying to this email should
>>> suffice). In your acknowledgment please let us know whether or  
>>> not you
>>> are satisfied with the working group's response to your comment.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Michael Schneider
>>> on behalf of the W3C OWL Working Group
>>>
>

Received on Friday, 6 March 2009 13:52:01 UTC