possible compromise on rdf:XMLLiteral

This is the compromise proposal that I offered to put together.

My belief is that this is unnecessary and I am happy with the documents as
they are, complete with minor technical flaw. I would also be happy with the
documents with this fix - but not if this change is one which puts at risk
OWL reaching recommendation.

I believe this proposal is a (small) technical improvement.

Proposed change and change log with rationale:

OWL Semantics

Modify the definition of OWL interpretation by the insertion of
"rdf:XMLLiteral, " between "for" and "xsd:integer".

New definition

Definition: Let D be a datatype map that includes datatypes for
rdf:XMLLiteral, xsd:integer and xsd:string. An OWL interpretation, I = < RI,
PI, EXTI, SI, LI, LVI >, of a vocabulary V, where V includes the RDF and
RDFS vocabularies and the OWL vocabulary, is a D-interpretation of V that
satisfies all the constraints in this section.

Change log entry:
Added word "rdf:XMLLiteral" to definition of OWL interpretation to remind
the reader that this datatype is part of every RDF interpretation and that
this is inherited by OWL.

OWL Test
Section 4.2.2
Add between the definition of "OWL Full consistency checker" and "complete
OWL Lite consistency checker" a new paragraph as follows.
The datatype map of an OWL Full consistency checker MUST also support
rdf:XMLLiteral from [RDF Concepts].

b) Modify test miscellaneous-205 by deletion of the word "Full" from its
levels box.
Corresponding modifications to the manifest file for the test, and the
master manifest file.

Change Log Entry
Added paragraph near end of section 4.2.2, clarifying that a datatype map of
an OWL Full consistency checker, (being a datatype map from RDF Semantics)
"MUST" contain an entry for rdf:XMLLiteral.
This makes explicit a requirement that was already implicit in the PR

Corrected an error in the metadata of test miscellaneous-205 which is not
applicable for OWL Full, since rdf:XMLLiteral is a required datatype for OWL
Full. This change is visible as the deletion of the word "Full" from the
header of the test.

The error in the OWL Test Candidate and Proposed Recommendation appears to
have been relatively benign

Test miscellaneous-205 was passed by FOWL, Pellet, OWLP, Hoolet and failed
by  Consvisor. The related test miscellaneous-204 was passed by Pellet,
Consvisor and Euler. OWLP, Pellet and Hoolet being explicitly OWL DL
reasoners continue to pass test miscellaneous-205 appropriately. Consvisor
being an OWL Full system which supports rdf:XMLLiteral already conforms with
this implicit constraint of the OWL PR. It is unclear whether FOWL is an OWL
DL or OWL Full reasoner, if the latter, then the change in the test metadata
clarifies that they should implement the rdf:XMLLiteral datatype.

(It is not clear to me if the last para is appropriate in the change log).


Received on Friday, 19 December 2003 10:27:28 UTC