Re: Proposed reply to

On Mon, 2003-04-14 at 12:30, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> I propose the following reply and changes to partly address
> from Jeff Pan.

At least one part of it seems wrong to me; I'm not insprired
with replacement text just now, but...

>   As stated in the response, final resolution awaits the
> final version of RDF datatyping, which is not yet in a form that is usable
> in OWL. 
> peter
> Again, thank you for your comments.   In this message I propose some
> editorial and tyopgraphical changes that I think might help to address
> some of them.  The remainder will be handled later, as indicated in the message.
> > 1. Section 2
> > 
> > Section 2 claims that OWL uses some of the facilities of XML Schema, and some
> > built-in XML Schema datatypes can be used in OWL. It is not clear, however,
> > whether the derived datatypes based on the above supported XML Schema datatypes
> > can be used in OWL or not. Reasons for why they can (or can't) be used in OWL are
> > expected to be explained in section 2 as well.
> Yes, this is not currently clear.  I propose to make the following
> editorial addtion to the paragraph in Section 2 that talks about the usable
> XML Schema datatypes:
> 	Because there is no reliable way to go from a URI reference to an
> 	XML Schema datatype in an XML Schema,

I can think of several reliable mechanisms. The issue is
endorsement/standardization, not existence.

>  user-defined XML Schema
> 	datatypes cannot be used in OWL.

I think they can be used; we don't guarantee that they'll
work, but we don't/shouldn't specify that they cannot work either.

I'll try to think of better words presently.

Dan Connolly, W3C

Received on Monday, 14 April 2003 22:23:07 UTC