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: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 12:29:11 +0200
Message-ID: <4FA7A3F7.8030604@fzi.de>
To: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@cs.ox.ac.uk>
CC: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, <public-owl-wg@w3.org>, "Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, "Evain, Jean-Pierre" <evain@ebu.ch>
Am 07.05.2012 00:19, schrieb Ian Horrocks:
> 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.

I agree!

Best,
Michael

>
> 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.
>

-- 
.........................................................
Dipl.-Inform. Michael Schneider
Research Scientist, IPE / WIM

FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik
Haid-und-Neu-Str. 10–14
76131 Karlsruhe, Germany
Tel.: +49 721 9654-726
Fax: +49 721 9654-727

michael.schneider@fzi.de
www.fzi.de

.........................................................
Forschungszentrum Informatik (FZI) an der Universität Karlsruhe
Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
Stiftung Az: 14-0563.1 Regierungspräsidium Karlsruhe
Vorstand: Dipl. Wi.-Ing. Michael Flor, Prof. Dr. Ralf Reussner,
Prof. Dr. Rudi Studer, Prof. Dr.-Ing. J. Marius Zöllner
Vorsitzender des Kuratoriums: Ministerialdirigent Günther Leßnerkraus
.........................................................
Received on Monday, 7 May 2012 10:29:45 UTC

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