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

ISSUE-131 (Single OWL-R profile): We should unify OWL-R DL and OWL-R Full profiles

From: OWL Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 18:34:38 +0000 (GMT)
To: public-owl-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <20080624183438.97693BEEB@nelson.w3.org>


ISSUE-131 (Single OWL-R profile): We should unify OWL-R DL and OWL-R Full profiles

http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/

Raised by: Boris Motik
On product: 

Hello,

It might be beneficial to try and unify OWL-R DL and OWL-R Full into a single profile. The main benefit would be that we would not need owl:intendedProfile: the profile an ontology is in would be defined by the syntactic structure of the axioms in the ontology. Please note that this would not affect the rules of OWL-R -- these would stay exactly as they currently are.

Here are the proposed changes to the Profiles document:

- We would rework entire Section 4 to talk only about OWL-R, and not about OWL-R DL and OWL-R Full.

- We would rename Section 4.2 to "Profile Specification". There, we would use the structural specification to define the allowed structure of the language.

- We would add a general remark to the document, probably in the introduction, that each RDF graph falls into a particular profile if it can be parsed into a structural specification ontology according to the rules specified in the RDF Mapping document. Please note that this is not something that is specific to OWL-R: we need a definition of when an RDF graph constitutes a valid ontology in a particular fragment for the other fragments as well.

- We would delete Section 4.3.1.

- Section 4.3.2 would become Section 4.3 and we would call it "Reasoning in OWL-R and RDF Graphs using Rules". The contents of the section would remain the same.

Please let me know how you feel about this.

Regards,

	Boris
Received on Tuesday, 24 June 2008 18:35:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 24 June 2008 18:35:12 GMT