W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > May 2012

Re: status of xsd:duration in OWL (and RIF and SPARQL) - ACTION-164: RDF WG

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 13:08:26 +0200
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org, "Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>, Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, Ian Horrock <ian.horrocks@cs.ox.ac.uk>, "Evain, Jean-Pierre" <evain@ebu.ch>
Message-Id: <7318AEEB-76D7-4095-9B66-0EA8118378FA@w3.org>
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>

On May 4, 2012, at 12:10 , Bijan Parsia wrote:

> On 4 May 2012, at 11:05, Ivan Herman wrote:
>> (Removing some mailing lists from the CC list, because that seems to be a purely OWL, and possibly RIF WG discussion...)
>> I am not commenting on the technical issue. The current status of the WG is based on the latest extension of its charter announced in:
>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-members/2011OctDec/0066.html
> Can we use a public reference.

I am sorry; charter extensions and administrations are always member confidential... I cannot change that. 

But the situation is also described (less formally) on the home page of the WG:


which refers to the dependencies on the XSD specification. Updating the dependencies does not mean adding new features, ie, new datatypes.

>> in my reading that does not allow adding new datatypes, or change the semantics of existing ones (except if there are technical issues created by the final version of the XSD document compared to the version we used when OWL 2 was finalized).
> Technically, I don't see where that's explicitly authorized. I can't quote the member only email to demonstrate this. A narrow reading would forbid even that. A broad reading could allow various tweaks.
> IOW, if we want to fudge it we can :)

There is a fairly clear text, I believe, in the 


which clearly states what an edited recommendation is. Based on the alternatives in 7.6.2., although conformance may be affected by possible changes, no new features are allowed for that.

Adding a new datatype would mean issuing an OWL 2.1 (or OWL 2.01:-). 

>> Doing so would not mean an 'edited' OWL 2 document, but a new version instead. That would require rechartering the OWL WG or creating a new group.
> A quick rechartering wouldn't be so hard, I think, for this narrow point. I'm happy to start thinking about a new group (it's getting toward time).
> However, I personally hope that the W3C wouldn't be so hidebound and rule entangled to prevent a useful tweak on narrow procedural grounds, esp. when there's a reasonably expansive reading available.

I think we are bound to the rules here. If we decided to bend them significantly, we may get public/member push back and discussion. Do we want to go there?

To make it clear: I am not against, per se, adding new datatypes to OWL. But, I believe, we have to go through due process of, essentially, creating a new group with everything that it requires and means...



> Cheers,
> Bijan.

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Friday, 4 May 2012 11:05:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:42:03 UTC