W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > November 2007

Re: Owl 1.1 DL and OWL 1.1 Full

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 16:28:34 +0100
Message-ID: <4731D9A2.4070202@w3.org>
To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
Cc: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>


Jim Hendler wrote:
>
[snip]
> This could be simple to deal with - these omissions can be easily fixed
> when a section on OWL 1.1 Full is added to the document
> This could be a charter issue - since it very clearly contradicts the
> charter [3] statement that
> 
> "All new features should have a clear syntax, and a clear semantics both
> in terms of OWL DL and OWL Full. The existing compatibility between OWL
> DL and OWL Full should be preserved, and should be extended to new
> features wherever possible."
> 

Sigh (as one of the co-editors of the charter):-(. This was indeed an
omission rather than anything else. I must admit that my mental 'model'
at least was the current OWL document where, as far as I know, _all_
constructions are present both on DL and in Full, albeit with different
and usually restricted usage in DL and with different semantics here and
there. The alternative of having some features/constructions that are
defined for OWL1.1 Full only and not defined _at all_ for DL simply did
not come to my mind.

(By pushing it a bit, zero semantics is also semantics, ie, if a feature
has _no_ semantics on the DL level, that could be argued to fulfil the
charter requirement... But I am only half serious:-)

Ivan

-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf


Received on Wednesday, 7 November 2007 15:28:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:13:27 GMT