RE: draft responses for four JC LC comments

>-----Original Message-----
>From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org]
>On Behalf Of Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 6:06 AM
>To: public-owl-wg@w3.org
>Subject: draft responses for four JC LC comments
>
>I've put together draft responses for four of the JC LC comments.
>
>See http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Responses_to_Last_Call_Comments for
>more information.
>
>peter
>
>PS:  On several of these responses much more could be said, e.g.,
>pointing out the difficulties in keepin the RDF and OWL vocabularies
>straight, but I've generally gone with the "more is less", if not "less
>is more", philosophy.

* Reification Comment: I'm happy with this draft. And I agree that a lot more could be said. If this should become necessary, I will be happy to volunteer to say more on this. The WG may take me as a champion for *not* (re|ab)using RDF reification as OWL's annotation vocabulary.

* "Web-SROIQ" Comment: Maybe we should articulate that essentially all the "problematic" stuff was already contained in the original OWL member submission, where, to my knowledge, there was no distinction between the "OWL" part and the "Web-SROIQ" stuff -- and one of the submitting members was Top Quadrant!

* NegProp Comment: The proposed change would have a large effect on the RDF-Based Semantics document. Many parts would need to be changed, and it would take me quite some thinking on how to treat this encoding. And it would be a pain to express in OWL Full what will then so easy in OWL DL: Having a negative property assertion on the right hand side of an entailment query, which IMO will often be a reasonable thing to ask for. And then there is also the round-tripping issue, which would probably have a lot of ramifications. So I deny this proposal.
 
* "owl:real" Comment: As a preliminary note (because it's hard to tell without deeper analysis, and I don't have the time for this now), I don't currently see a technical problem with the cardinality of the universe of any OWL 2 RDF-Based interpretation being uncountable. In particular, I don't understand why Jeremy is concerned about a "dependency on the continuum hypothesis" (What dependency?). I also don't buy the argument that owl:real "breaks RDF conformance" and "is not a datatype". owl:real formally /has/ a lexical space and a lexical-to-value mapping, though the lexical space, and hence the argument space of the mapping, is empty. And Section 5 of RDF Concepts states:

 - Each member of the value space may be paired with any number (including zero)
   of members of the lexical space (lexical representations for that value). 

So this seems fine to me. But maybe we should contact one of the editor's of the RDF Concepts spec to clarify how this is exactly meant. :-)

Michael

--
Dipl.-Inform. Michael Schneider
Research Scientist, Dept. Information Process Engineering (IPE)
Tel  : +49-721-9654-726
Fax  : +49-721-9654-727
Email: michael.schneider@fzi.de
WWW  : http://www.fzi.de/michael.schneider
=======================================================================
FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik an der Universität Karlsruhe
Haid-und-Neu-Str. 10-14, D-76131 Karlsruhe
Tel.: +49-721-9654-0, Fax: +49-721-9654-959
Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts, Az 14-0563.1, RP Karlsruhe
Vorstand: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Rüdiger Dillmann, Dipl. Wi.-Ing. Michael Flor,
Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Wolffried Stucky, Prof. Dr. Rudi Studer
Vorsitzender des Kuratoriums: Ministerialdirigent Günther Leßnerkraus
=======================================================================