- From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
- Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 08:42:08 -0500
- To: webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
- Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
In [1] Peter Patel-Schneider made a five part proposal to close the datatyping issue. One section of this was: >4/ OWL can use XML Schema non-list simple types defined at the top > level of an XML Schema document and given a name, by using the URI > reference constructed from the URI of the document and the local name of > the simple type. That is, if U is the URI of an XML Schema document > that contains, > <xsd:schema ...> > <xsd:simpleType name="foo"> > <xsd:restriction base="integer"> > <xsd:minInclusive value="1700"> > </xsd:restriction> > </xsd:simpleType> > ... > </xsd:schema> > then the URI reference U#foo will be that datatype. > > Implementations of OWL may choose to ignore the facets such a type. Although I personally think this is a good proposal, the right way to do this, and something OWL needs, I am afraid that I (very reluctantly) have to rule this piece of this proposal OUT OF SCOPE for WOWG based on W3C process and charter considerations. This is because, Another Working Group, XML Schema [2], has been asked by the W3C to develop a recommendation for creating URIs for these kinds of user-defined datatypes which is in the scope of their charter [3]. The W3C process for dealing with issues where two groups in the same activity have a conflict is to ask the coordination group to resolve it [4]. Unfortunately, XML Schema and WOWG are NOT in the same activity, so this resolution cannot be made by the SW-CG. The SW-CG has assigned actions (see [5]) aimed at starting dialog with XML Schema on a resolution of this issue satisfactory to both WOWG and RDF Core, but that cannot have a specific resolution date or etc. since it is not in our hands. Thus, I see the situation as: a. an issue was raised in our group, b. the issue is not explicitly in our charter, though if is clearly important to our language needs c. the issue raised a dependency with another group d. that group was determined to have this issue explicitely in its charter e. the issue was raised to a coordination group, action has been taken, but it cannot override the charter of another W3C group (esp. one in another domain) by W3C process, I see no choice but to rule this specific issue (how to assign URIs to a user-defined XML Schema datatype) as out of the scope of our charter. (to put it simply, our WG cannot do something another WG is chartered to do, just as we would complain if some other group decided they were going to have some ontological constructs in their language - that's our chartered work) Suggestion: If someone in our WG would like to take an action to draft a message, from the WG to XML Schema (they have a public comments list) expressing our need for user-defined types and our proposed solution, this could be presented to our WG, and if approved, could be sent as a consensus opinion of our WG to the XML Schema WG -- this would carry more weight than if an individual complains). I certainly see preparing such a message in the WG's name as within our rights by W3C process) Please Note: the other four parts of Peter's datatype proposal [1], are certainly within our scope, and I propose we discuss and close this proposal as soon as we can. -Jim Hendler Web Ontology Working Group CoChair [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Nov/0265.html [2] http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Schemas.html (member only) [3] http://www.w3.org/2001/12/xmlbp/xml-schema-wg-charter.html (member only) [4] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010719/groups.html#GroupsCG (member only) [5] http://www.w3.org/2002/12/09-swcg-irc.html (member only) -- Professor James Hendler hendler@cs.umd.edu Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies 301-405-2696 Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab. 301-405-6707 (Fax) Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 240-731-3822 (Cell) http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler
Received on Wednesday, 11 December 2002 08:42:12 UTC