Re: new draft response for LC comment 66 AR1

On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 8:33 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider
<pfps@research.bell-labs.com> wrote:
> I really don't want to suggest against people using, for example, the
> XML Schema datatypes that RIF has in addition to the ones in the OWL 2
> datatype map.  To me, this means not SHOULD-ing out these datatypes in
> OWL 2.

If we want people to be able to use those, why aren't we including them in OWL?

> Similarly, I don't want to prevent people from using W3C names for
> particular relations amongst datatypes.  To me, this means not
> SHOULD-ing out the XPATH, ... namespaces.

As I've pointed out, the definition of op:numeric-add, is rather
complicated in XPATH. How do you propose that we don't arrive at a set
of implementations that behave differently?

> It would be nice to say something like:
>
>  Don't do anything stupid with the W3C namespace, e.g., having
>  datatypes, ..., that are incompatible with those defined by various
>  W3C recommendations.
>
> However, this could equally well apply to any well-known namespace, and
> I don't really want to say something like:
>
>  OWL 2 ontologies *SHOULD NOT* do anything stupid, e.g., being
>  gratuitously incompatible with well known standards.

I don't think people are typically gratuitously incompatible. But they
land up being incompatible for many reasons anyhow. I think that the
job of the OWL WG (now and in the future) is to define how OWL plays
in the space of other Semantic Web standards, and given that I can see
problems already, and that we already take protective measures to try
to ensure that into the future, like reserving use of certain
namespaces, I consider my suggestions to conservative and in line with
our current practice.

-Alan

>
> peter
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: new draft response for LC comment 66 AR1
> Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 04:16:28 -0400
>
>> 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 13:32:34 UTC