Re: Draft Response for LC Comment 22 MSM1

2009/3/12 Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>

> [Draft Response for LC Comment 22:] MSM1
>
> Dear Scott,
>
> Thank you for your message
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/0027.html
> >
> on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts.
>
> Thank you for your support of new features in OWL 2.
>
> The OWL WG acknowledges that there are applications where one would like
> to use OWL and RIF.  However, the needs of a representation language
> have driven the OWL WG to make certain choices in which datatypes are in
> OWL 2.  The OWL WG has tried to support a large collection of datatypes,
> which may be larger than that supported by RIF.  Applications that want
> to use both OWL and RIF can restrict themselves to those datatypes that
> ate supported by both OWL and RIF.
>
> The OWL WG had wanted to have a single base type for its numeric types,
> namely owl:realPlus.  Several comments, yours included, as well as
> implementation experience have resulted in the OWL WG moving to align
> with XML Schema, and thus RIF, so that in OWL 2 xsd:decimal, xsd:float,
> and xsd:double now have pairwise disjoint value spaces.  As a result of
> this change the need for owl:realPlus has disappeared and it has been
> removed from OWL 2.  Several OWL 2 documents have been or are being
> modified to effect these changes.
>
> The OWL WG has realized that an overview document would be useful and to
> that end has produced the Document Overview, with working draft
> available at http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Document_Overview
>
> The New Features and Rationale document has gone through a number of
> significant edits recently.  The OWL WG hopes that its current version
> is more attuned to your needs.  You will, of course, have a chance to
> make formal comments on this document when it reaches last-call status.


 AFAIK  Scott did not mention concerns regarding NF&R, on the opposite, he
found it to be really helpful to approach the specifications, see his
comment below.  As he was aware of NF&R from the talk I gave at the HCLS F2F
in Cannes, he asked for the link to the last version of NF&R  to forward it
to HCLS people, hoping to help getting some feedback from them.

"The problem that I've heard until now is that most HCLS people understand
OWL2 only when it is applied (not from a specification). Is this the latest
version? I think that it would help many to 'frame' what they see in the
specs."

Could you please say which part from the quoted email <
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/0027.html><http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/0027.html%3E>
might
have led to such misunderstanding and to reply  "The New Features and
Rationale document has gone through a number of significant edits
recently.The OWL WG hopes that its current version is more attuned to your
needs"?

I'm sorry but I cannot endorse this sentence and ask to reformulate it
please.

Christine

>
>
> 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,
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> on behalf of the W3C OWL Working Group
>
>


-- 
Christine