Re: [XSCH] My review of section 1

Jeremy,

Thanks for your comments.

> concerning
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/XSCH/xsch-sw-20041213/#sec-related
> 
> Hi Jeff,
> 
> I have three comments about section 1 for your consideration:
> 
> a) could section 1.3 be entitled "Datatypes in OWL DL"

It could.
 
> b) it wasn't obvious to me the relevance of 1.4, after some thought I 
> realised that this showed that user defined datatypes do not undermine 
> the computational principles of OWL DL, and are suitable for use in 
> them. I suggest a further introductory paragraph reminding the reader 
> that OWL DL is built on DL theory and that extending OWL DL to use 
> user-defined datatypes does depend on further DL theory than that 
> presented in the OWL Semantics

> c) even so, 1.4 felt a little out of place (relevant but too heavy too 
> early), could it be moved to an appendix? e.g. add additional paragraph 
> to 1.3 above current last para, explaining that other theoretical work 
> is required, and that the appendix gives this work.

A solution to extend OWL DL to support user-defined datatypes should cover

1) a standard way of referring to an XML Schema user defined simple
type with a URI reference, and

2) a formal framework of combining SHOIN with user defined datatypes so that the combined language is still decidable.

Section 1.4 is an attempt to address 2) and can be extended in later versions. I propose to extend it in the following way:

1. At the end of Section 1.3, explain further theoretical work is required.
2. Add a sub-section at the end of Section 2 to provide a high level description of 2); therefore, Section 2 provides a complete solution for the user defined datatypes problem.
3. Add an appendix to provide some technical details of 2).
4. Remove Section 1.4.

Greetings,
Jeff

--
Dr. Jeff Z. Pan  ( http://DL-Web.man.ac.uk/ )
School of Computer Science, The University of Manchester



> Jeremy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Monday, 20 December 2004 17:33:36 UTC