Re: specifying minimal datatypes without reference to "OWL Tools"

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Subject: Re: specifying minimal datatypes without reference to "OWL Tools"
Date: 23 Jul 2003 16:02:12 -0700

> Peter, I suggested this editorial change a while back;
> your co-editors agreed it was an improvement and
> nobody has spoken against it.
> 
> It seems that you haven't gotten around to it yet.
> The "OWL tools" text is still in
> 
> http://www-db.research.bell-labs.com/user/pfps/owl/semantics/syntax.html
> last modified 07/23/03 14:20:31
> 
> Please do make the change or let us know why not.
> 
> On Wed, 2003-07-02 at 14:06, pat hayes wrote:
> > >Hmm... I gather Peter is travelling.
> > >
> > >Meanwhile, I'd be interested to know if anybody
> > >else agrees or disagrees that this is an improvement...
> > 
> > I agree it is, and also find the "OWL tool" reference jarring.
> > 
> > Pat
> > 
> > >
> > >On Thu, 2003-06-26 at 09:37, Dan Connolly wrote:
> > >>  Prompted by Martin's I18N questions, I found...
> > >>
> > >>  "OWL tools need only implement the datatypes xsd:integer and
> > >>  xsd:string."
> > >>    --
> > >>  http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/syntax.html#owl_built_in_datatypes
> > >>
> > >>  What's an "OWL tool"? Let's specify the language
> > >>  without reference to software.
> > >>
> > >>  In 3.1. Vocabularies and Interpretations,
> > >>  please change the defintion of datatype theory
> > >>  and/or Abstract OWL interpretation so that
> > >>  integer and string have to be included in the
> > >>  set of datatypes for every Abstract OWL interpretation.

This has been in for a while, but I've just changed it to be more explicit.

> > >>  And change OWL interpretation in 5.2. OWL Interpretations
> > >>  likewise.
> > >>
> > >>  Then strike the "OWL tools..." bit in
> > >>  section 2. Abstract Syntax.

Just done.

> > >--
> > >Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/

peter

Received on Wednesday, 23 July 2003 21:55:19 UTC