Re: new draft response for LC comment 66 AR1

Hello Peter,

There are two concerns I have with this response.

The first is that with the possibility of N-ary datatypes, functions,
as described in XPATH[1], are now in scope for datatypes. There may be
further W3C specifications of functions as well. My concern is that
these not be defined by users in a way that constrains future W3C and
OWL standardization efforts.

The second is that, as you know, I have concerns about the way that
datatypes are specified in XML schema, and what it means to be
compatible with them. Therefore, leaving the interpretation of these
up to users of OWL is likely to lead to incompatible ontologies. I
would like to avoid this.

An alternative would be say that datatypes with URIs from domain
w3.org or subdomains, other than the ones mentioned in our
specification, SHOULD NOT be in the datatype map.

-Alan

[1]  http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath-functions/#namespace-prefixes

On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 4:03 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.
>
> 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 Wednesday, 18 March 2009 08:17:04 UTC