- From: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
- Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2011 08:38:06 +0000
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: RDB2RDF Working Group WG <public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org>
> The OWL 2 adoption has not suffered from this issue at all, nobody > raised any problems since 2009. My advise would be to adopt the same > line of action for R2RML and DM. It would be wrong to keep to 1.0 > when other SW standards have made the choice of 1.1 +1 ... sounds sensible to me. PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-77 with the procedure described by Ivan Cheers, Michael -- Dr. Michael Hausenblas, Research Fellow LiDRC - Linked Data Research Centre DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway Ireland, Europe Tel. +353 91 495730 http://linkeddata.deri.ie/ http://sw-app.org/about.html On 25 Nov 2011, at 08:24, Ivan Herman wrote: > Richard, all, > > We do have precedence here. Both the OWL and the RIF WG-s hit > exactly the same issue (I have not checked lately for SPARQL and I > imagine the RDF WG will hit the same problem, too). Here is what has > happened in the OWL 2case (the RIF is fairly identical). > > - OWL 2 has clearly chosen for XSD 1.1. That means the reference in > the document _is_ on the XSD 1.1 CR document. Unusual, slight > breakage of the rules, but it was necessary. > - The 'Status' section of the Recommendation includes a subsection > on this, see the example below > - Once the Recommendations were published, the OWL 2 WG went into a > 'dormant' state. Ie, it is not formally closed, is maintained in the > books, but there is not activity (calls, etc). The only exception is > that error reports are stored and maintained in a file; something > that this group will have to plan for when the time comes anyway. > - The agreement is that once the XSD 1.1 is published as Rec, the > Group reconvenes and publishes what we call an Edited > Recommendation. That is a rec that has absolutely non difference in > technical content v.a.v. the original ones, but only editorial > changes (misspellings, that sort of things). In this specific case > that ER of OWL 2 will change the formal reference to the XSD 1.1 > Rec, remove that status subsection and, if any, fold in the > editorial errors that the community may have found. Ie, there would > be an editorial work to be done when the time comes, and editorial > work that is clearly quick and can be done by 1-2 persons. > > The OWL 2 adoption has not suffered from this issue at all, nobody > raised any problems since 2009. My advise would be to adopt the same > line of action for R2RML and DM. It would be wrong to keep to 1.0 > when other SW standards have made the choice of 1.1 > > Cheers > > Ivan > > Here is the status subsection I was referring to: > > [[[ > XML Schema Datatypes Dependency > > OWL 2 is defined to use datatypes defined in the XML Schema > Definition Language (XSD). As of this writing, the latest W3C > Recommendation for XSD is version 1.0, with version 1.1 progressing > toward Recommendation. OWL 2 has been designed to take advantage of > the new datatypes and clearer explanations available in XSD 1.1, but > for now those advantages are being partially put on hold. > Specifically, until XSD 1.1 becomes a W3C Recommendation, the > elements of OWL 2 which are based on it should be considered > optional, as detailed in Conformance, section 2.3. Upon the > publication of XSD 1.1 as a W3C Recommendation, those elements cease > to be optional and are to be considered required as otherwise > specified. > > We suggest that for now developers and users follow the XSD 1.1 > Candidate Recommendation. Based on discussions between the Schema > and OWL Working Groups, we do not expect any implementation changes > will be necessary as XSD 1.1 advances to Recommendation. > ]]] > > See http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-syntax-20091027/ > > > On Nov 25, 2011, at 24:30 , RDB2RDF Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: > >> >> ISSUE-77 (xsd-c14n): XSD canonicalization – 1.0 or 1.1? [R2RML] >> >> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/track/issues/77 >> >> Raised by: Richard Cyganiak >> On product: R2RML >> >> So it turns out that XSD canonicalization is actually very >> different between XSD 1.0 and XSD 1.1. Quite a lot has changed – I >> don't have the full picture but handling of time zone offsets is >> different, handling of decimals appears to be different, and who >> knows what else. >> >> Given that XSD 1.1 is in the CR stage, I don't feel very good about >> writing spec text that asks R2RML/DM implementers to implement XSD >> 1.0 canonicalization rules that will soon be obsolete. >> >> On the other hand, given that XSD 1.1 is not yet at REC stage, we >> can't write spec text that normatively prescribes the use of XSD >> 1.1 canonicalization rules. >> >> >> > > > ---- > 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, 25 November 2011 08:38:46 UTC