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.

Maybe we can be more explicit about that?  Rather than just say what
we're doing, say that we request OWL drop these types from the
RL-profile?   Then OWL-WG can just say "yes".

On numeric disjointness, maybe also point them to 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Jan/0017.html
?    Or I'll do that later.

      -- Sandro

> 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 14:46:04 UTC