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: Evain, Jean-Pierre <evain@ebu.ch>
Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 07:34:19 +0200
To: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@cs.ox.ac.uk>, Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
CC: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, "public-owl-wg@w3.org" <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>
Message-ID: <7D1656F54141C042A1B2556AE5237D6001163056BA55@GVAMAIL.gva.ebu.ch>
Hello Ian, all,

I insist that the current mishandling of basic datatypes by RDF and OWL.

If this is not covered by the current charter then let's do what is needed to start such a new activity and solve these problems.

Jean Pierre
________________________________________
From: Ian Horrocks [ian.horrocks@cs.ox.ac.uk]
Sent: 07 May 2012 00:19
To: Bijan Parsia
Cc: Ivan Herman; public-owl-wg@w3.org; Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail); Michael Schneider; Peter F. Patel-Schneider; Sandro Hawke; Evain, Jean-Pierre
Subject: Re: status of xsd:duration in OWL (and RIF and SPARQL) -    ACTION-164:  RDF WG

Hi Bijan (et al),

According to my understanding, we agreed to keep the WG alive so that we could fix any OWL 2 problems caused by changes to XSD 1.1 and update the OWL 2 Rec to reference the XSD 1.1 Rec. It was also foreseen that we could take advantage of this update to fix any editorial errata in the OWL 2 Rec.

While I agree that the dividing line between editorial errata and substantive changes is not 100% clear, it does seem pretty obvious to me that adding support for a new datatype goes beyond the spirit of this agreement.

Regards,
Ian



On 4 May 2012, at 12:39, Bijan Parsia wrote:

> On 4 May 2012, at 12:34, Ivan Herman wrote:
> [snip]
>>> New features are explicitly allowed. So we don't even have to get into what "feature" means. It's explicitly allowed.
>>
>> Sorry, you are right. But it also says:
>>
>> "For the fourth class of change (new features), W3C must follow the full process of advancing a technical report to Recommendation."
>
> As I acknowledged below:
>
> "Clearly not, afaict. We could do that, of course. We would have to have a nominal LC, CR, and PR, though these are frankly, to my mind, ridiculous."
>
> But my understanding is that that would be an *edited recommendation*, not a new recommendation.
>
> I am happy to push toward a 2.1 and I'm also happy to try to add datatypes in a non-Rec way.
>
> But surely this is a prime example of strong interpretation of the Rules getting in the way of what is a relatively minor fix.
>
> BTW, Can we add comments to the Functional Syntax as requested? I think that would be useful as well :)
>
>> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr#rec-advance
>>
>> which means going through the whole WD-LC-CR-PR-REC route.
>
> Sure, but it can be superlightweight. (We could go straight to a short LC. Reasonable CR, then short PR.) The key bit is CR I think...i.e., we'd need to get a couple of implementations on board. But these are not profoundly tricky datatypes. (It's not like adding floats or decimals or rationals or strings). It's mostly a syntax level tweak.
>
> I think this is a very super scoped change. If we open the door any further, that would be dangerous, I agree.
>
> Let me put it another way, I think it could be a very superscoped change that nevertheless would be high value.
>
> Cheers,
> Bijan.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by the mailgateway
**************************************************
Received on Monday, 7 May 2012 05:37:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:15 UTC