Re: draft response for LC comment 63 JO1

Good for me. Thanks.
-Alan
On 3/16/09, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com> wrote:
> I suppose that it is benign to change to something like:
>
>   The reason for a normative and recommendation track status for the OWL
>   2 XML syntax is to say that OWL 2 tools that use an XML schema
>   specified syntax for the exchange of ontology documents *should* use
>   the XML schema provided in the OWL 2 recommendation. Making the XML
>   syntax a working group note would not provide this sort of guidance.
>
> This is even more explicit, and points out that it is ontology documents
> that are being exchanged.
>
> peter
>
>
>
> From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: draft response for LC comment 63 JO1
> Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 17:00:29 -0400
>
>> Because the issue of the XML syntax, has a contentious one, and because
>> the addition says more clearly what the case is. Is there something
>> wrong with saying so?
>>
>> -Alan
>>
>> On Mar 16, 2009, at 4:36 PM, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider"
>> <pfps@research.bell-labs.com > wrote:
>>
>>> OWL tools are in some sense free to use whatever XML they want
>>> internally, and the WG doesn't really have anything to say about this,
>>> but I don't see why the reply should have the "for exchange of"
>>> qualification.
>>>
>>> peter
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
>>> Subject: Re: draft response for LC comment 63 JO1
>>> Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 14:25:17 -0400
>>>
>>>> Hi Peter,
>>>>
>>>> A minor point.
>>>>
>>>> In:
>>>> The reason for a normative and recommendation track status for the OWL 2
>>>> XML syntax is to say that OWL 2 tools that use an XML syntax for OWL 2
>>>> *should* use the XML syntax provided in the OWL 2 recommendation.
>>>>
>>>> s/that use an XML syntax/that use an XML syntax for exchange of/
>>>> Presumably this should be fixed in the underlying document unless
>>>> obvious from the immediate context.
>>>>
>>>> -Alan
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 10:07 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>>>> <pfps@research.bell-labs.com> wrote:
>>>>> [Draft Response for LC Comment 63:] JO1
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Jacco,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for your message
>>>>>
>>>>> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Feb/0013.html>
>>>>> on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Working Group acknowledges that the recent last call document set
>>>>> confused some readers, particularly with respect to the overall OWL 2
>>>>> environment and the various syntaxes for OWL 2.  At its last
>>>>> face-to-face meeting the Working Group has, therefore, added a new
>>>>> document to the OWL 2 suite, entitled "Document Overview". The document
>>>>> has not yet been published, but an editor's draft is publicly available
>>>>> at:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Document_Overview
>>>>>
>>>>> The Document Overview document describes the status of the various
>>>>> syntaxes for OWL 2 and clearly states that RDF/XML is the primary
>>>>> syntax
>>>>> for the exchange of OWL 2 ontologies.  This status is reiterated in the
>>>>> Conformance document.  The Document Overview document states that the
>>>>> XML syntax need not be supported by OWL 2 tools.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are other parts of the OWL 2 recommendation that are optional as
>>>>> well.  There can be OWL 2 tools that only implement OWL 2 RL, for
>>>>> example.
>>>>>
>>>>> The reason for a normative and recommendation track status for the OWL
>>>>> 2
>>>>> XML syntax is to say that OWL 2 tools that use an XML syntax for OWL 2
>>>>> *should* use the XML syntax provided in the OWL 2 recommendation.
>>>>> Making the XML syntax a working group note would not provide this sort
>>>>> of guidance.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Working Group plans on making the examples in the OWL 2 Structural
>>>>> Specification and Functional Syntax document available in other
>>>>> syntaxes, even though that document only defines one syntax.  The
>>>>> Working group does not intend to make changes to the XML Serialization
>>>>> document in response to your message.
>>>>>
>>>>> We hope that the new document and other upcoming changes address your
>>>>> concerns.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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 21:19:42 UTC