Warning:
This wiki has been archived and is now read-only.
LC Responses/JH2
| In my opinion, OWL 2 is a great improvement over OWL 1 since it incorporates several expressive means which are relevant for applications.
However, regarding datatypes the restriction to unary relations (facets) seems unnecessary since concrete domains with n-ary relations are state of the art in DL research, and they certainly are useful in practice, since they allow to express, eg, that a car is at least as heavy as its engine. It would thus be great if datatype relations with a higher arity could be included in the final version. |
To: Hladik, Jan <jan.hladik@sap.com>
CC: public-owl-comments@w3.org
Subject: [LC response] To Jan Hladik
Dear Jan,
Thank you for your comment
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/0050.html>
on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts.
You have noticed that, in the current specification of OWL 2, only *unary* datatype relatations (facets) are supported and that, in theory, this restriction is unnecessary. The syntax is defined, however, in such a way that it can be easily extended to datatype relatations (facets) of arity larger than one. It is possible that such an extension (to the syntax and the semantics) will be published later as a separate document; this will depend on the state of and experiences with implementations.
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,
Uli Sattler
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