Re: draft response for LC comment 20 JDB1

I'm not sure why this is relevant to the reply.  We have removed the
incorrect rationale and extended the collection of OWL 2 RL datatypes,
in response to the point brought up by Jos.

However, if you have suggestions for changes to the wording of the
reply, feel free to propose same.

peter


From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: draft response for LC comment 20 JDB1
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 14:27:34 -0400

> Hi Peter,
> 
> I think a few words about, or pointer to a discussion of the
> implementation issues that are relevant to OWL RL in this response
> should be added.
> 
> -Alan
> 
> On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 9:28 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> <pfps@research.bell-labs.com> wrote:
>> [Draft Response for LC Comment 20:] JDB1
>>
>> Dear Jos,
>>
>> Thank you for your message
>>  <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/0022.html>
>> on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts.
>>
>> You are correct that OWL 2 RL does not need the intersection of
>> datatypes to be empty or infinite.  Accordingly the datatypes in OWL 2
>> RL have been adjusted to include all the OWL datatypes that are
>> restrictions of xsd:decimal and xsd:string and also xsd:boolean.
>>
>> In response to another comment
>>  <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Jan/0083.html>
>> on the difficulty of implementing datatypes in rules systems,
>> owl:real and owl:rational have been removed from OWL 2 RL.
>> This possibility was mentioned in Feature At Risk #2.
>>
>> The diffs for these changes can be found at
>> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Profiles&diff=18687&oldid=18109
>>
>> Implementation difficulties have resulted in xsd:float and xsd:double
>> remaining out of OWL 2 RL.  If these difficulties can be overcome the
>> two datatypes may be included in OWL 2 RL.  If changes occurs the
>> working
>> group will notify you.
>>
>> 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
>>
>>

Received on Monday, 16 March 2009 20:25:49 UTC