new draft response for LC comment 66 AR1

[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.
 
The Syntax document as of the date of your message stated

  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 meant 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 and thus
attempts to go counter to XML Schema datatypes outside of those in the
OWL 2 datatype map were not allowed in OWL 2 ontologies.

Recent changes to OWL 2, notably the division of OWL 2 syntax conditions
into general conditions and OWL 2 DL conditions, have resulted in the
relaxation of this rule, but still in a manner that appears to be in
accord with your desires.  Currently the Syntax document states

  OWL 2 tools MAY support datatypes that are not listed in this
  section. [...]  If such an extension includes datatypes from XML
  Schema [XML Schema Datatypes] not listed in the following sections,
  these SHOULD be supported in a manner consistent with their respective
  definition in XML Schema.

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 Friday, 13 March 2009 20:02:54 UTC