W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > April 2009

Re: differences between OWL 1 and OWL 2

From: Christine Golbreich <cgolbrei@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 20:55:14 +0200
Message-ID: <b0ed1d660904011155i5615b665lebe7e4d41494c743@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
I'm not sure at which place your text is intended to be put. ?

NF&R is supposed to be the normal place for differences between OWL1
and OWL 2 and Section 3 of [1] is aiming at dealing with close issues,
and if I don't mistake, several LC responses pointed to NF&R about
that (it's why we added this section)

Would you agree to merge that content with the existing of that section ?

[1] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/New_Features_and_Rationale#Other_Design_Choices_and_Rationale


2009/4/1 Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>:
> As far as I know, the changes from OWL 1 to OWL 2 are additions, with
> only a very few exceptions.  The differences could be described as
> follows:
>
>
>  OWL 2 is almost entirely compatible with OWL 1, both syntactically and
>  semantically.
>
>  The functional syntax for OWL 2 is organized differently than the
>  abstract syntax for OWL 1, but every construct in the OWL 1 abstract
>  syntax has a directly corresponding construct in the OWL 2 functional
>  syntax.
>
>  Just as in OWL 1, OWL 2 can handle all RDF graphs.  The vocabulary
>  that is given special meaning in OWL 2 includes the special vocabulary
>  of OWL 1.  However, the use of owl:DataRange is deprecated --
>  rdfs:Datatype should be used instead.
>
>  The direct semantics for OWL 2 is almost completely compatible with
>  the direct semantics for OWL 1.  The only difference is that
>  annotations are semantics-free in the direct semantics for OWL 2.
>
>  The RDF-based semantics for OWL 2 is completely compatible with the
>  RDF-based semantics for OWL 1.  Some of the details of this semantics
>  have changed, but the set of inferences are the same.
>
>  The treatment of importing in RDF documents has changed slightly in
>  OWL 2 if the RDF graphs are to be considered as OWL 2 DL ontologies.
>  In OWL 1, importing happened first, so the entire merged graph was
>  considered as one unit.  In OWL 2, the individual documents are
>  considered separately in most cases.  This means that there are some
>  groups of documents that could form an OWL 1 DL ontology but that do
>  not form OWL 2 DL ontologies.
>
>



-- 
Christine
Received on Wednesday, 1 April 2009 18:55:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 1 April 2009 18:55:49 GMT