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

RE: Review of Direct Semantics (ACTION 314)

From: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 11:27:43 +0100
To: "'Michael Schneider'" <schneid@fzi.de>
Cc: "'W3C OWL Working Group'" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <FEAB830BE1EF4710B4484CA983C248FB@wolf>
Hello,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Michael Schneider
> Sent: 07 April 2009 22:56
> To: Boris Motik
> Cc: W3C OWL Working Group
> Subject: RE: Review of Direct Semantics (ACTION 314)
> 
> Hi Boris!
> 
> Unmentioned answers are accepted. Some of the mentioned answers are also
> (sometimes weakly) accepted, if this is explicitly stated.
> 
> Boris Motik wrote on April 06, 2009:
> 

[snip]

> >> * §1, 2nd par: "Since OWL 2 is an extension of OWL DL, ..." Didn't we
> >want to
> >> turn away from this statement?
> >>
> >
> >But this actually is true: each OWL DL ontology is an OWL 2 DL ontology,
> >and it is therefore an OWL 2 ontology. Hence, I don't really see a
> >problem with this statement.
> 
> Yes, you are right. But what I actually had in mind was that we
> had LC comments on this particular kind of statements,
> for example LC 28/FH2, which specifically refers to this phrase in the
> Direct Semantics:
> 
>   <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/0035.html>
> 
> So, I strongly suggest to change the text here.
> 
> I can see that, in this particular case, this statement is a rational
> for the observation that the Direct Semantics is also a semantics for
> the original OWL DL and OWL Lite. So, that's really good information
> that people will be happy to learn.
> 
> Suggestion, why not start the sentence with something approximately like:
> 
>   "Since this semantics in this document is an extension
>   of the Direct Semantics of OWL 1 ..."
> 
> IMHO, this will be completely uncontentious for people outside the WG,
> and will still meet the purpose of the sentence.
> 

I've changed the sentence to this:

ince each OWL DL ontology is an OWL 2 ontology, this document also provides a direct semantics for OWL Lite and OWL DL ontologies; this semantics is equivalent to the direct model-theoretic semantics of OWL Lite and OWL DL [OWL Abstract Syntax and Semantics].

> >> * §2.1, before the list concerning datatype maps: The sentence ends
> >with "with
> >> the following components.", i.e. with a ".". In other places, e.g. the
> >> following list for "vocabularies", there is a ":" instead. Consider
> >being
> >> coherent.
> >>
> >
> >I've changed "." into ":".
> 
> Found still one "." in §2.2. :-)
> 

Oops, sorry!

> >> * §2.1, list of items (and other places): I always wondered why the
> >pairs,
> >> such as "< F v >" and "< LV DT >" do not contain a comma, while other
> >pairs
> >> later in the document do have a comma? Consider being coherent.
> >>
> >
> >Fair enough -- I've added a comma everywhere. I've also updated the
> >notation in the Syntax document.
> 
> Ok. But I found that you missed Syntax §7.5 (DatatypeRestrictions).
> 

Oops, sorry!

[snip]

> >> * §2.2.2: "An n-ary data range DR is interpreted as an n-ary relation
> >(DR)^DT
> >> over Δ_D." Please be more explicit what this means, just as you are
> >more
> >> explicit earlier in this paragraph on what "unary relation over
> >DELTA_D"
> >> means, namely "(DT)^DT subset DELTA_D". You probably mean "(DR)^DT
> >subset
> >> (DELTA_D)^n"?
> >>
> >
> >Thomas had a comment about this, and I've rephrased the paragraph in
> >response to him. Please let me know should you find the new formulation
> >insufficient.
> 
> I can see that the text has changed. However, the change did not
> touch the part of the text to which my comment referred. So my
> comment is still open.
> 
> What I meant is to have for n-aries a text analog to the phrase:
> 
>   "— that is, as a set (DT)DT ⊆ ΔD"
> 

Fair enough -- it makes the text symmetric. I've added it.

Regards,

	Boris

> Cheers,
> Michael
> 
> --
> Dipl.-Inform. Michael Schneider
> Research Scientist, Dept. Information Process Engineering (IPE)
> Tel  : +49-721-9654-726
> Fax  : +49-721-9654-727
> Email: michael.schneider@fzi.de
> WWW  : http://www.fzi.de/michael.schneider
> =======================================================================
> FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik an der Universität Karlsruhe
> Haid-und-Neu-Str. 10-14, D-76131 Karlsruhe
> Tel.: +49-721-9654-0, Fax: +49-721-9654-959
> Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts, Az 14-0563.1, RP Karlsruhe
> Vorstand: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Rüdiger Dillmann, Dipl. Wi.-Ing. Michael Flor,
> Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Wolffried Stucky, Prof. Dr. Rudi Studer
> Vorsitzender des Kuratoriums: Ministerialdirigent Günther Leßnerkraus
> =======================================================================
Received on Wednesday, 8 April 2009 10:28:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 8 April 2009 10:28:59 GMT