This wiki has been archived and is now read-only.

LC Responses/AR1

From OWL
Jump to: navigation, search

[Draft Response for LC Comment 66:] AR1

Dear Alan,

Thank you for your message


on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts.

The Syntax document as of the date of your message stated

 IRIs belonging to the rdf, rdfs, xsd, and owl namespaces constitute
 the reserved vocabulary of OWL 2. As described in the following
 sections, the IRIs from the reserved vocabulary that are listed in
 Table 3 have special treatment in OWL 2. All IRIs from the reserved
 vocabulary not listed in Table 3 constitute the disallowed vocabulary
 of OWL 2 and MUST NOT be used in OWL 2 to name entities, ontologies,
 or ontology versions.

This meant that the use of XML Schema datatypes that are not stated as usable in OWL 2 takes an ontology outside the scope of OWL 2 and thus attempts to go counter to XML Schema datatypes outside of those in the OWL 2 datatype map were not allowed in OWL 2 ontologies.

Recent changes to OWL 2, notably the division of OWL 2 syntax conditions into general conditions and OWL 2 DL conditions, have resulted in the relaxation of this rule, but still in a manner that appears to be in accord with your desires. Currently the Syntax document states

 OWL 2 tools MAY support datatypes that are not listed in this
 section. [...]  If such an extension includes datatypes from XML
 Schema [XML Schema Datatypes] not listed in the following sections,
 these SHOULD be supported in a manner consistent with their respective
 definition in XML Schema.

Please acknowledge receipt of this email to <mailto:public-owl-wg@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