W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > June 2008

Re: ISSUE-121 (RDFS-based OWL 2 DL): Do we want/need an OWL 2 DL language, which is based on RDFS semantics?

From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 16:46:27 +0100
Message-Id: <FE63DFB4-E0C2-45B9-B8E2-9881DED97B82@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
To: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>

Alan and I discussed this and agreed that we prefer to simply reject  
this issue on the grounds that:

- the OWL DL language was based on RDFS semantics is an obscure and  
undesirable "feature" of AS&S, and really only an artefact of the  
effort to achieve a correspondence with OWL Full;

- there is no such language in the OWL 2 spec, and no plans to add one.

Ian



On 21 Apr 2008, at 10:15, OWL Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:

>
>
> ISSUE-121 (RDFS-based OWL 2 DL): Do we want/need an OWL 2 DL  
> language, which is based on RDFS semantics?
>
> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/
>
> Raised by: Michael Schneider
> On product:
>
> In OWL 1 there was, in addition to OWL DL and OWL Full, an OWL DL  
> language which was based on RDFS semantics, see AS&S sec. 5.4 [1].
>
> This language shared most of its semantic conditions with OWL Full.  
> But it was different from OWL Full in that the different parts of  
> the OWL universe (the class extensions of owl:Thing, owl:Class,  
> owl:ObjectProperty, etc.) were demanded to be pairwise disjoint  
> (see the table given in sec. 5.4).
>
> The relationship between this RDFS-based OWL DL and the abstract  
> syntax-based OWL DL (or perhaps better: the description logic-based  
> OWL DL) was stated in Theorem 1 of sec. 5.4. In short, this theorem  
> stated that exactly the same entailments "G1 |= G2" hold in both  
> languages, *if* G1 and G2 are valid OWL DL ontologies in RDF graph  
> form.
>
> The WG has to decide whether to create such an RDFS-based OWL 2 DL  
> language, or not.
>
> [1] <http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/rdfs.html#5.4>
>
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 17 June 2008 15:47:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 17 June 2008 15:47:11 GMT