- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 12:45:31 +0000
- To: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On 18 Mar 2009, at 08:16, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: > 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. This is already accomplished by the current restriction. We can't control how the *W3C* defines these other terms further, and it'd be a bit overreaching to say that implementors cannot use other W3C specifications. > 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. How is it up to the *users* of OWL? Implementors, perhaps, but that's true anyway. > 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. This unnecessarily stifles innovation. What I put in my datatype map is my concern. The W3C already has general policies for enforcing control of namespaces in its domain and we should delegate it to them. (For example, OWL 1.1 reused the OWL namespace until submission where we were forced to coin a new one; now I think that was a silly application of the policy, but the policy was enforced and enforced at the proper and appropriate spot; further warning is out of our proper baliwick). Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Wednesday, 18 March 2009 12:41:49 UTC