W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-comments@w3.org > February 2009

OWL 2 RL semantics?

From: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 17:32:47 +0100
Message-ID: <498B14AF.4090606@inf.unibz.it>
To: public-owl-comments@w3.org
Hello,

I know that the official deadline for comments has expired, but I was
only just made aware of this issue.

>From the entailment checker section in the conformance document [1] it
seems that OWL 2 RL does not have the standard OWL 2 direct semantics,
but only the RDF-based semantics.
I do not understand why this is the case, as OWL 2 RL is a syntactic
subset of OWL 2.
One of the problems is that an OWL 2 RL entailment checker can,
according to the current definition, only take RDF documents as input;
not OWL ontology documents.
A more serious problem is that the RDF-based semantics is generally
quite hard to understand, and the relationship with the direct semantics
is not obvious.  It will thus be very hard to implement OWL 2 RL for
anyone who has a rule reasoner that does not work on the RDF level.

I strongly suggest to reconsider the semantics of OWL 2 RL, and give it
the same semantics as OWL 2 DL.


Best, Jos

[1]
http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Conformance_and_Test_Cases#Entailment_Checker
-- 
Jos de Bruijn            debruijn@inf.unibz.it
+390471016224         http://www.debruijn.net/
----------------------------------------------
No one who cannot rejoice in the discovery of
his own mistakes deserves to be called a
scholar.
  - Donald Foster


Received on Thursday, 5 February 2009 16:32:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 5 February 2009 16:32:56 GMT