LC Responses/MK1

From OWL
Revision as of 17:49, 23 March 2009 by IanHorrocks (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

To: Marijke Keet <keet@inf.unibz.it>
CC: public-owl-comments@w3.org
Subject: [LC response] To Marijke Keet

Dear Marijke,

Thank you for your comment
     <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Mar/0014.html>
on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts.

We changed the text in Section 9.5 of the OWL 2 Structural Specification and Functional-Style Syntax [1] to talk about (lack of) functionality and to include an example.

Does this adequately address your concerns?

[1] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Syntax#Keys

Please acknowledge receipt of this email to <mailto:public-owl-comments@w3.org> (replying to this email should suffice). In your acknowledgment please let us know whether or not you are satisfied with the working group's response to your comment.

Regards,
Ian Horrocks
on behalf of the W3C OWL Working Group



CUT AND PASTE THE BODY OF THE MESSAGE (I.E. FROM "Dear" TO "Group") INTO THE BODY OF AN EMAIL MESSAGE. SET THE To:, CC:, AND Subject: LINES ACCORDINGLY.

PLEASE TRY TO REPLY IN A WAY THAT WILL ALLOW THREADING TO WORK APPROPRIATELY, I.E., SO THAT YOUR REPLY CONTINUES THE THREAD STARTED BY THE ORIGINAL COMMENT EMAIL



[Draft Response for LC Comment 47]

Dear Marijke,

Thank you for your message

 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/0062.html

on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts.

The OWL working group realizes that keys are often functional (and thus 1:1). OWL in general does not have a requirement that properties are functional. Non-functional keys are useful in some cases, for example, passport numbers are keys for people but quite a few people have more than one passport number (because of multiple citizenship).

In any case, as you say, properties can be made functional in OWL, either locally or globally, and this provides for functional keys. Therefore, the OWL working group does not intend to change OWL 2 or to make any changes in the OWL 2 document in response to your comment.

Please acknowledge receipt of this email to <mailto:public-owl-comments@w3.org> (replying to this email should suffice). In your acknowledgment please let us know whether or not you are satisfied with the working group's response to your comment.

Regards, Peter F. Patel-Schneider on behalf of the W3C OWL Working Group