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

RIF comments

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 13:09:11 +0100
Message-ID: <482984E7.4000806@hpl.hp.com>
To: "Web Ontology Language ((OWL)) Working Group WG" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>

Sorry I dropped the ball ...

Here's a draft:


This is a review of


on behalf of the OWL WG.

We have one change request, and two further comments.

Please change the sentence just before section 3.1

This paves the way towards combination with OWL 2, which is envisioned 
to allow punning in all its syntaxes.

and the sentence from

It is currently expected that OWL 2 will not define a semantics for 
annotation and ontology properties; therefore, the below definition 
cannot be extended to the case of OWL 2.

with a less definitive statement such as:

In this document, we are using OWL to refer to OWL1. While OWL2 is still 
in development it is unclear how RIF will interoperate with it. At the 
time of writing, we believe that with OWL2 the support for punning may 
be beneficial, and that there might be particular problems in using 

B) On the editors note, at the end of section 1, we advise that RDF 
entailment is much less interesting than the others (simple, RDFS, D, 
OWL DL, OWL Full), and we would not expect opposition to RIF not 
supporting it.

C) Several participants in our group were unconvinced by the use of the 
"http://www.w3.org/2007/rif"^^rif:iri and "literal string@en"^^rif:text 
and found the deviation from the well-established notation for the RDF 
symbols a potential source of confusion to readers of this document, 
most of whom will also be readers of other Semantic Web documents from 
the W3C, and might expect a certain uniformity of style. Most of those 
present at our meeting were sympathetic to this point of view, but we 
felt it inappropriate to make a stronger comment on a sylistic matter.


does that capture it, have I softened C) sufficiently?

Received on Tuesday, 13 May 2008 12:10:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:04 UTC