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: Tue, 8 May 2012 10:51:18 +0200
Cc: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>, Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@cs.ox.ac.uk>, <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>
Message-Id: <49635FB4-3A3F-4B08-9FEC-EF24639F5B2D@w3.org>
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Just to help the technical issues here:

http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/CG/docs/XSD1.1-diffs.html#duration

is the diff file for duration between the version OWL 2 referred to back then and now. I am sorry but the diff did not replace the relative URI-s to absolute ones, ie, the diagrams are not in the file, but the diff can help nevertheless.

I did not go into the details but there seem to be quite a lot of changes on duration. I do not know whether those have any effect on the considerations that Michael listed last night.

Ivan

On May 8, 2012, at 10:34 , Bijan Parsia wrote:

> On 8 May 2012, at 00:42, Michael Schneider wrote:
> 
>> Am 07.05.2012 12:42, schrieb Bijan Parsia:
>>> On 7 May 2012, at 11:29, Michael Schneider wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Am 07.05.2012 00:19, schrieb Ian Horrocks:
> [snip]
>>>> I agree!
>>> 
>>> But, you know, who the heck cares about the spirit of some agreement?
>> 
>> Oops, sorry for having been so short on words - that's not what people generally expect from me and, certainly, I have more to say than simply agreeing to Ian. :-)
>> 
>> Fine, not talking about procedural stuff here, and also not mentioning (ok, I do) that I believe that it's not so easy to bring a working group happily back to work after 2 1/2 years,
> 
> I'll put aside whether that's strictly necessary or what it means exactly... :)
> 
>> there is still the question whether these three datatypes are technically appropriate for inclusion in OWL at all (whether in OWL 2, or OWL 2.1, or whatever).
> 
> Yes, thank you. That should be the first consideration.
> 
>> So here is the situation as I recall it:
>> 
>> First to say, it's not that these datatypes were simply forgotten to be considered, as some people seem to believe.
> 
> Sorry I can't go into detail right now (I hope at the end of the day), but let me just note that my point is that *if* there were a material change in XSD 1.1  (or a change in our understanding) that makes these *previously* rejected datatypes acceptable *then* it's reasonable to update the map.
> 
> 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 Tuesday, 8 May 2012 08:48:36 UTC

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