- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 12:53:20 +0000
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- CC: hendler@cs.umd.edu, www-webont-wg@w3.org
>> >>We have resolved that rdf:XMLLiteral will be a built-in datatype in >>OWL Lite, OWL DL and OWL Full contingent on a satisfactory response >>from RDF Core WG on this comment. >> > > I don't remember this resolution. > Neither do I, the text was copied from a message from me proposing such a resolution, followed by proposing this comment. I wanted the comment to have the form of: - request a change (some sort of stick in hand here) - agree to use the changed mechanism (a carrot) >>Raphael Volz of our group has prepared a detailed review of this >>document which he will send to the RDF Core WG. The Web Ontology >>Working Group agrees with the spirit of his review and summarizes our >>comments below: >> >>i. Although this document is called RDF Schema we think that the >>title "RDF Vocabulary Description Language" would be clearer, and >>make the difference from XML Schema (used for validation) more >>evident. >> >>ii. The current design does not specify what the behavior is for >>domain/range constraints stated on super-properties wrt. to >>subproperties. We would request that a default behavior be specified. >> > > This paragraph does not address the issue that Raphael brought up. The > interaction between domain/range constraints and sub-/super-properties is > well specified in the formal semantics, and not a separate problem. The > problem has to do with Section 4 of the RDF Schema document, which vaguely > talks about RDF applications using domain/range constraints for things like > document validity checking. > > I feel that the lack of consensus over section 4 should be made explicit - otherwise I feel a certain discomfort over the endorsement of his review. Personally I support the section 4 text as is. >>------------------------------------------- >>Consensus comments on the RDF Semantics document >>-------------------------------------------- >>We believe that the design of the semantics, as reflected in the LC >>documents, is such that OWL will be able to layer appropriately. >> > > The basic design of the semantics may be suitable, but there are many > problems in the details that affect OWL. It might be able to layer OWL on > the semantics as described in the RDF Semantics last call working draft, > but it would require considerable work on our part to get around the errors > in that document. > > >>However, we have a number of concerns that need to be addressed to >>improve the document (and, in particular, to fix some inconsistencies >>in the current document). >> >>Herman ter Horst of our group has prepared a detailed review of this >>document itemizing inconsistencies he has found. The Web Ontology WG >>endorses the spirit of his review, and has asked Herman to help >>insure that the final RDF Semantics document is edited to fix the >>inconsistencies and editorial issues that he identifies. >> > > You should mention here the many errors that I have found in this document, > most of which have been verified by Pat. We might want to discuss my > current view of the way forward with respect to the RDF Semantics document > at the teleconference today. > > peter > > I would suggest a phrase like "... working closely with the lead OWL semantics' editor to ensure that ...", since we desire this and it is likely to happen. Jeremy
Received on Thursday, 20 February 2003 07:53:35 UTC