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

Re: OWL 2 SS&FSS spec. - 8.1.4 wording sufficent?

From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 23:55:16 +0100
Message-Id: <7FF2D31D-4AD6-4D06-ADB1-D5D004A30B3F@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Cc: public-owl-comments@w3.org
To: Daniel Barclay <daniel@fgm.com>
Dear Daniel,

Thank you for your comment
      <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/ 
2009Sep/0011.html>
on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts.

In the relevant UML definition an enumeration of individuals is  
associated with a set of individuals. The definition of structural  
equivalence is based on the equivalence of these sets. As discussed  
in Section 2.1 [1], sets written in a concrete syntax (such as the  
functional syntax) are not necessarily expected to be duplicate free,  
but duplicates should (in the RFC 2119 sense) be eliminated when  
ontology documents written in such syntaxes are converted into  
instances of the UML classes of the structural specification, i.e.,  
during parsing.

The wording you mention is not part of the formal definition of  
enumerations of individuals but is intended to provide an informal  
and intuitive explanation of the meaning of this piece of syntax. We  
were aware of the possible confusion between UML classes/instances  
and ontology classes/instances and were careful to ensure that we  
explicitly say "UML Class" or "instance of UML Class" whenever we are  
referring to the former. We now explicitly mention this, as well as  
clarifying some other issues related to the use of UML, in Section  
2.1 [1]. To review these changes please refer to the relevant diff [2].

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

[2] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php? 
title=Syntax&diff=25572&oldid=25485

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
Received on Tuesday, 15 September 2009 22:55:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 15 September 2009 22:55:54 GMT