Re: draft public comment for OWL last call from RIF

I'm happy with this level of detail on the disjointness of numerics.

However, at the F2F we did not adopt *all* the other OWL proposals. In 
particular, I thought we had agreed to not add owl:rational (which is 
"at risk" in the OWL drafts) and we weren't minded to adopt the 
specialist subtypes of xsd:string viz xsd:normalizedString, xsd:token, 
xsd:Name, xsd:NCName and xsd:NMTOKEN. Technically they are in limbo in 
that we did not (as far as I can tell) resolve to reject them nor 
resolve to accept them.

How about:

[[[
We have reviewed the OWL choices for the XML schema datatypes and have 
found them acceptable for RIF with one major exception, and some minor ones.

Our primary concern is that we do not see how we can work with the 
redefinition of xsd numeric datatypes with overlapping (non-disjoint) 
value spaces.  While we all agreed the idea of e.g. "1.0"^^xsd:double 
and "1"^^xsd:decimal being the same entity makes sense, RIF adds a set 
of builtin functions and predicates to its chosen xsd's and these are 
based on a wide implementation base that assume disjointness of xsd 
value spaces.  Breaking these implementations would negatively impact 
interchange and significantly raise the "barrier to entry".

Of lesser concern we do not see value for our user base in adopting 
owl:rational but note that is already At Risk in the current OWL2 
drafts. We also do not see value in requiring support for the string 
subtypes xsd:normalizedString, xsd:token, xsd:Name, xsd:NCName and 
xsd:NMTOKEN.
]]]

The point being we don't really care if they keep owl:rational and the 
string subtypes but it would preferable if they were not required within 
at least the OWL2 RL profile.

Cheers,
Dave

Chris Welty wrote:
> 
> 
> [RIFWG - comments please.  This is the message I propose to send to the 
> OWL public comments list from RIF.  Should I get more technical, or is 
> this sufficient.]
> 
> The RIF WG's primary mission is interchange, and interoperability 
> between RIF and OWL is both an internal goal as well as, we believe, a 
> goal of the semantic web community in general.  We believe that the 
> semantic web standards should settle on a common set of datatypes and a 
> common interpretation of them.
> 
> We have reviewed the OWL choices for the XML schema datatypes and have 
> found them acceptable for RIF with one exception:  we cannot work with 
> the redefinition of xsd numeric datatypes with overlapping 
> (non-disjoint) value spaces.  While we all agreed the idea of e.g. 
> "1.0"^^xsd:double and "1"^^xsd:decimal being the same entity makes 
> sense, RIF adds a set of builtin functions and predicates to its chosen 
> xsd's and these are based on a wide implementation base that assume 
> disjointness of xsd value spaces.  Breaking these implementations would 
> negatively impact interchange and significantly raise the "barrier to 
> entry".
> 
> 
> -The RIF WG
>

Received on Thursday, 22 January 2009 09:40:29 UTC