- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 08:05:10 -0400
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
I'm concerned that this doesn't go far enough. For instance the N-ary datatypes extend into the realm of functions and we say nothing about and the namespace http://www.w3.org/2005/xpath-functions, for instance, is not mentioned in our spec. Moreover I would prefer a note that is more proximate to the discussion of datatypes in the conformance document. -Alan On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 9:58 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com> wrote: > [Draft Response for LC Comment 66:] AR1 > > Dear Alan, > > Thank you for your message > <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Feb/0272.html> > on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts. > > Your message appears to be resting on a misconception concerning the > status of the XML vocabulary in OWL 2. > > The Syntax document (draft at <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Syntax>) > states that: > > IRIs belonging to the rdf, rdfs, xsd, and owl namespaces constitute > the reserved vocabulary of OWL 2. As described in the following > sections, the IRIs from the reserved vocabulary that are listed in > Table 3 have special treatment in OWL 2. All IRIs from the reserved > vocabulary not listed in Table 3 constitute the disallowed vocabulary > of OWL 2 and MUST NOT be used in OWL 2 to name entities, ontologies, > or ontology versions. > > This means that the use of XML Schema datatypes that are not stated as > usable in OWL 2 takes an ontology outside the scope of OWL 2. > > Please acknowledge receipt of this email to > <mailto:public-owl-wg@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, > Peter F. Patel-Schneider > on behalf of the W3C OWL Working Group > >
Received on Thursday, 12 March 2009 12:05:44 UTC