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

Re: differences between OWL 1 and OWL 2

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 17:11:03 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20090401.171103.41055620.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: schneid@fzi.de
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
From: "Michael Schneider" <schneid@fzi.de>
Subject: RE: differences between OWL 1 and OWL 2
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 22:38:07 +0200

> Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> 
>>  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.
> 
> I think the removal of the comprehension conditions [1] from the normative
> set of semantic conditions is a significant change, and, to my knowledge,
> has already been noticed by some. So saying "completely compatible" should
> probably be avoided. 

This is why I used "compatible" and not "equivalent".

> The question is whether it should be mentioned in a user facing document.
> Perhaps one can circumscribe it somehow (in a highlevel way), and point to
> the "Changes" section [2] of the RDF-Based Semantics for technical details
> (which then points to even more technical details :)).
> 
> Michael
> 
> [1] <http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/rdfs.html#comprehension_principles>
> [2]
> <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/RDF-Based_Semantics#Appendix:_Changes_from_
> the_OWL_RDF-Compatible_Semantics_.28Informative.29>

peter
Received on Wednesday, 1 April 2009 21:09:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 1 April 2009 21:09:48 GMT