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

Backward compatibility audit

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 19:53:45 +0100
Message-Id: <0C3CEA33-0C54-4BE5-BA31-351F10FEFBD8@cs.man.ac.uk>
To: public-owl-wg@w3.org

Following up on the telecon, I started a page for the BC audit.
	<http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Backward_compatibility_audit>

As I understand it, any BC issues should go on Tracker. Discussion  
can take place on the Wiki page or on list.


==================================
Some of the documents make BC claims like:

"""" Every OWL 1.1 ontology can be serialized in RDF, so every OWL  
1.1 ontology in RDF is a valid OWL Full ontology. The RDF syntax of  
OWL 1.1 is backwards-compatible with OWL DL, this is, every OWL DL  
ontology in RDF is a valid OWL 1.1 ontology."""

It would be good to verify these.

There are some clear non-BC points. For example, the Functional  
Syntax is not BC with the Abstract Syntax, and quite radically so.  
There is a rationale section:
	<http://www.webont.org/owl/1.1/owl_specification.html#A>

And a paper:
	<http://www.webont.org/owled/2006/acceptedLong/submission_13.pdf>

Plus the papers discussing the OWL API at OWLED 2006 and 2007 mention  
the advantages of the new Functional Syntax.

So, the current documents reflect a view on essential vs.  
inessential, which I think it is pretty intuitive. I've not heard  
anyone yet claim that that view got it objectionable wrong, but I  
hesitate to predict whether this shall continue. If you object to the  
lack of BC between the functional and abstract syntax, please say so.

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2007 18:52:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:13:26 GMT