RE: draft response for LC comment 16 (lexical value)

Ah, I remember, I was asked to draft this myself in one telco... :-] 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org]
>On Behalf Of Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2009 1:10 PM
>To: public-owl-wg@w3.org
>Subject: draft response for LC comment 16 (lexical value)
>
>
>[Draft Response for LC Comment 16] MS6
>
>To: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
>CC: public-owl-comments@w3.org
>Subject: [LC response] To Michael Schneider
>
>Dear Michael,
>
>Thank you for your comment
>
>    <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-
>comments/2009Jan/0007.html>
>
>on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts.
>
>Thanks for pointing the divergence between the nomenclature in the OWL 2
>documents and that used previously. We have moved from lexical value to
>lexical form to be consistent with XML Schema datatypes and RDF.
                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Actually, my comment was more about consistency with /OWL 1/ and RDF. 

Concerning XML Schema, being consistent with this standard looks to me more as "nice to have" than to be a requirement. Our notion of a datatype or a datatype map is not totally dependent on that of XSD, and we even define datatypes outside the scope of XSD (rdf:XMLLiteral, owl:rational).

But when I look into the XSD spec at

  http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/

I can see that this document uses /two/ different terms: 

  * "lexical form" (e.g. in �3.2.16), and

  * "lexical representation" (e.g. in �3.2.17.1).

I'm not an XSD expert. Does anyone know whether these terms are used as synonyms? In this case, things would be especially fine for us. 
  
Nevertheless, I think we should not refer to XSD to motivate our step to change the terminology. It should be sufficient to point to OWL 1 and RDF. And these two specs say "lexical form".

>The diffs can be found at
>... Syntax
>... Direct Semantics

and "... RDF-Based Semantics".

>The working group views this as an editorial change.

Yes, of course!

>
>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

Best,
Michael

PS: Apart from the somewhat hairsplitting discussion above, I, as the original commenter, would be happy with the outcome to use "lexical form". :)

--
Dipl.-Inform. Michael Schneider
Research Scientist, Dept. Information Process Engineering (IPE)
Tel  : +49-721-9654-726
Fax  : +49-721-9654-727
Email: schneid@fzi.de
WWW  : http://www.fzi.de/ipe/eng/mitarbeiter.php?id=555

==============================================================================

FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik an der Universit�t Karlsruhe
Haid-und-Neu-Str. 10-14, D-76131 Karlsruhe
Tel.: +49-721-9654-0, Fax: +49-721-9654-959
Stiftung des b�rgerlichen Rechts
Stiftung Az: 14-0563.1 Regierungspr�sidium Karlsruhe
Vorstand: Prof. Dr.-Ing. R�diger Dillmann, Dipl. Wi.-Ing. Michael Flor,
Prof. Dr. rer. nat. Dr. h.c. Wolffried Stucky, Prof. Dr. rer. nat. Rudi Studer
Vorsitzender des Kuratoriums: Ministerialdirigent G�nther Le�nerkraus

==============================================================================