- From: Boris Motik <Motik@fzi.de>
- Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 08:35:42 +0200
- To: "Uschold, Michael F" <michael.f.uschold@boeing.com>, "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>, <public-webont-comments@w3.org>
Hello, I'm afraid that there is another problem with the OWL XML Presentation Syntax. Namely, it does not contain a counterpart of the Datatype() axiom from OWL Abstract Syntax. In this way it is not possible to store an annotation of a datatype or a deprecation information for a datatype using OWL XML Presentation Syntax. Sincerely yours, Boris Motik -----Original Message----- From: Uschold, Michael F [mailto:michael.f.uschold@boeing.com] Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 2:17 AM To: Dan Connolly; Peter F. Patel-Schneider Cc: Boris Motik; public-swbp-wg@w3.org; public-webont-comments@w3.org Subject: RE: An inconsistency in OWL XML Presentation Syntax? It seems to me that minimally, there should be a summary of known errors/bugs/problems with OWL that is pointed to in a clear obvious (i.e. hard to miss) manner in the official OWL document pages. This current problem would go on that list. If there is no mechanism for this to occur, it seems like an oversight. Much harder is a process to come up with agreed changes to fix the problems... Mike -----Original Message----- From: Dan Connolly [mailto:connolly@w3.org] Sent: Monday, July 12, 2004 1:54 PM To: Peter F. Patel-Schneider Cc: Motik@fzi.de; public-swbp-wg@w3.org; public-webont-comments@w3.org Subject: Re: An inconsistency in OWL XML Presentation Syntax? On Mon, 2004-07-12 at 10:27, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > From: "Boris Motik" <Motik@fzi.de> > Subject: An inconsistency in OWL XML Presentation Syntax? > Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 11:39:41 +0200 > > > > > Hello, > > > > I'm just trying to implement a parser/serializer for OWL XML Presentation > > Syntax, and have come across something which seems like an inconsistency in > > the syntax definition. > > > > The problem is in DataRestriction/hasValue element, which, according to the > > standard, should have xsd:anySimpleType content. However, in all other > > elements which contain a constant, such as OneOf [data], or > > DataPropertyValue, a constant is wrapped in a DataValue element. > > > > I believe that this really is an inconsistency, since DataValue allows > > including the 'datatype' attribute to specify the type of a constant. This > > attribute is not allowed on DataRestriction/hasValue, so it becomes > > impossible to specify the datatype of the constant embedded in the hasValue > > element. > > The situation is even worse than you state. According to the grammar, > hasValues for data restrictions are data types instead of data values, > which is completely wrong, I believe. > > > To make that syntax unified in all cases, I'd suggest changing the content > > of the DataRestriction/hasValue element to be a DataValue element. > > I believe that this suggestion is the best approach. In any case, > something has to be done, I believe. > > > > Sincerely yours, > > > > Boris Motik Thanks for the careful review, Boris, and thanks, Peter, for acknowledging the problem. > However, I'm not sure who gets to make this change, as the WebOnt working > group has been disbanded. I guess that the Semantic Web Coordination Group > is now responsible, Well, perhaps the Semantic Web Coordination Group is relevant, but it has no particular obligation: "The authors welcome comments on this document, but does not guarantee a reply or any further action. [...] no commitment is made by the W3C, or any of its members, regarding future updates." -- http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/NOTE-owl-xmlsyntax-20030611/ > but I don't know how to communicate with them, as > Lucent is not currently a W3C member. I have cc'd this message to the > Semantic Web Best Practices working group, as they are active, and may have > some official way of making the necessary change. I don't believe their charter obliges them mandate to update this document; I'm not sure it even gives them mandate. http://www.w3.org/2003/12/swa/swbpd-charter It seems to me that this problem report and the acknowledgement are minimally sufficient as a record of the situation. But if somebody was interested to edit a revised version of the note, I suppose we could find a way to publish it. > > Peter F. Patel-Schneider > Bell Labs Research -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 19 August 2004 06:36:17 UTC