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

Re: Occurrences of "OWL 2 Full" in our documents

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2009 13:02:17 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20090409.130217.225613276.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: schneid@fzi.de
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
I think that this is generally a good idea.  The changes are almost
entirely in the RDF-Based Semantics document.

A few concerns:

1/ Trivial - There are two cases where OWL 2 Full vocabulary is written as
"vocabularies for RDF, RDFS or OWL 2 Full", which will need to be
checked carefully.

2/ Minor - The Introduction will probably need some wordsmithing
after the term replacements have been done, particularly where it refers
to OWL 2 Full ontologies.

3/ Moderate - "OWL 2 vocabulary" is not a phrase that I would use here,
without some special preparation, even though "OWL vocabulary" was used
in S&AS.

In particular I would not go along with
   The OWL 2 vocabulary is a set of IRIs [RFC 3987], which occur in the
   sets of RDF triples that build the RDF encodings of all the OWL 2
   language constructs [OWL 2 RDF Mapping].

I suggest instead using "OWL 2 RDF-graph vocabulary", I guess, although
that is rather pedantic, particularly as it would be a frequently used
term.  To reduce the level of pedantery the document could define "OWL 2
RDF-graph vocabulary" and then say "(commonly abbreviated in this
document to ''OWL 2 vocabulary'')".

If the sentence above was then removed from the Introduction and the
redundant sentence  
    The OWL 2 Full vocabulary is a set of IRIs [RFC 3987] with the
    standard prefix name owl (see Section 3.1). 
was removed from 3.2, things would be cleaner.


peter



From: "Michael Schneider" <schneid@fzi.de>
Subject: Occurrences of "OWL 2 Full" in our documents
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 14:46:42 +0200

> Hi all! 
> 
> Here is a sort of "Last Call". :) It's very late in the day, I know, but
> this is a last attempt to cope with the current "OWL (2) Full" naming
> situation. I'm still unhappy with it, and I am probably not the only one
> (see below).
> 
> 
> Summary:
> --------
> 
> I will propose a set of renamings that will reduce the number of
> occurrences of the term "OWL 2 Full" to a minimum in our documents,
> while at the same time will clarify things considerably and, I believe,
> will have the chance to satisfy all parties (inside and outside the WG)
> under the existing constraints. I also believe that it will give us, the
> WG, a stronger position in the next LC round (and afterwards), if
> further criticism arises. The implementation of the proposal can be
> performed rapidly, so there will be no risk for our publication
> schedule.
> 
> 
> Some Background:
> ----------------
> 
> I recently saw Ian moan:
> 
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Apr/0089.html>
> [[
> I have updated the document to mention both 
> OWL 2 datatype maps (as defined in SS&FS) 
> and OWL 2 Full datatype maps (as defined in R-BS)
> [...]
> It is slightly unfortunate that this means more use 
> of "Full" -- I wonder if OWL 2 Full datatype maps 
> shouldn't have been called OWL 2 RDF-Based datatype 
> maps, but that is another issue.
> ]]
> 
> And Ivan had a point when reviewing the RDF-Based Semantics, and
> apparently wasn't really perfectly happy with my answer:
> 
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Mar/0555.html>
> [[
> Michael Schneider wrote:
>>
>> Ivan Herman wrote:
>>>
>>> - there are some places where you refer to 
>>> 'OWL 2 Full Interpretation/Satisfaction/Entailement'). 
>>> Strictly speaking, this may not be 100% o.k.,
>>
>> I called them this way, because you will find 
>> the analog names ("OWL Full XXX") in 
>> Section 5.3 ("OWL Full") of the SAS:
>>
>>   <http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/rdfs.html#5.3>
>>
> True. But one of the discussion items we had in the 
> past few days was based on the recognition that there 
> was some sloppiness there...
> ]]
> 
> And I alway was (and am) disgusted by the current terminological chaos
> in the RDF-Based semantics document. There is a mixup of uses of
> "RDF-Based" and "OWL 2 Full", where "OWL 2 Full" is often used in a
> context when only the semantics is meant. There are actually more than
> 100 uses of "OWL 2 Full", but it never becomes clear what this "OWL 2
> Full" is, and why it is used in the respective place.
> 
> Now, I'm really eager to make all of us happy(er)! :)
> 
> So let's see what I believe we can settle on, or what we already have
> settled on in the past:
> 
> 
> Uses of "OWL 2 Full" that seem to be accepted
> ---------------------------------------------
> 
> (1) There are "OWL 2 Full ontology documents", as defined in the
> Conformance document [1]. This term has been used in that document for a
> long while now, and I don't remember that it has ever been put strongly
> in question.
> 
> (2) After some longish discussions, we seem to have settled on "OWL 2
> Full" meaning the combination "RDF-Based Semantics + RDF Syntax", as it
> was (most probably) be meant in OWL 1 (although never precisely stated
> there). We have claimed this in a response to an LC comment [2], and it
> is actually said so in the Document Overview [3].
> 
> (3) The RDF-Based Semantics document introduces the term "OWL 2 Full
> ontology" [4] as a synonym for "RDF graph". It seems to me that this is
> fine (and straight forward), since we also use the term "OWL 2 Full
> ontology document" (see item (1)), which refers to a concrete RDF
> serialization, though.
> 
> If we agree that these uses of "OWL 2 Full [xxx]" are fine, then I am
> making the following proposals:
> 
> 
> Concrete Proposal
> -----------------
> 
> (A) Terms like "OWL 2 Full interpretation" and "OWL 2 Full datatype
> map", etc. (see the complete list below), are renamed into "OWL 2
> RDF-Based interpretation" and "OWL 2 RDF-Based datatype map",
> respectively, since they all relate to the semantics only.
> 
> (B) Specifically, the term "OWL 2 Full vocabulary" [5] is renamed into
> "OWL 2 vocabulary". This is fine, since the RDF vocabulary terms are
> used in the RDF mapping as well, so they is not specific to the OWL 2
> RDF-Based Semantics. I have only named it "OWL 2 /Full/ vocabulary" for
> naming consistency reasons. With proposal (A), these reasons will be
> removed.
> 
> (C) The name "OWL 2 Full" will be used in exactly one normative context
> in the RDF-Based Semantics, but is introduced as a terminological
> convention: In Section 2.1, which is about Syntax (RDF Graphs, aka "OWL
> 2 Full ontologies"), in the paragraph that sais what an "OWL 2 Full
> ontology" is ("A word on nomenclature") [6]. There, it will be said what
> "OWL 2 Full" is (according to Item (2) above).
> 
> (D) The (informative) "Introduction" section will also use the word "OWL
> 2 Full" exactly once, when it talks about Section 2.1 [7]. So, it's
> effectively the same use as in (C), but in a somewhat more prominent
> position.
> 
> (E) The "Changes from OWL 1 RDF-Compatible Semantics" section [8]
> concerning the new naming conventions will say a few words about the
> changes. This will primarily explain why a formerly "OWL Full
> interpretation" is now an "OWL 2 RDF-Based Interpretation": Because it
> makes sense and clarifies things. It will also be mentioned that the old
> spec was pretty vague in what "OWL Full" meant, and that this has now be
> clarified.
> 
> 
> Discussion
> ----------
> 
> This set of proposals will reduce the number of "OWL 2 Full" occurrences
> from more than 100 to exactly 4 in the RDF-Based Semantics, and all of
> them essentially in the same context. Further, in the Conformance
> document, there will at least be no "OWL 2 Full datatype map" anymore.
> 
> No one can accuse us then that we try to somehow circumvent the use of
> "OWL 2 Full", or make it fuzzy, or whatever. It's just that the
> RDF-Based Semantics document most of the time talks about, well,
> semantics, hence the rare use of the name. But there *IS* one place
> where it explicitly sais what "OWL 2 Full" is, and this will (must)
> satisfy people.
> 
> The only problem that might occur in LC is that there are people
> insisting on the reuse of the legacy terms such as "OWL 2 Full
> entailment". But we can answer that there was a tradeoff between clarity
> and legacy (enforced by LC1 !), and we decided for clarity, since our
> job is to write a spec. I would even offer to take such an LC response
> up to myself! :)
> 
> 
> Complete list of renamings in the RDF-Based Semantics:
> ------------------------------------------------------
> 
> * "OWL 2 Full ontology": NO CHANGE!
> * "OWL 2 Full vocabulary" --> "OWL 2 vocabulary"
> * "OWL 2 Full datatype map" --> "OWL 2 RDF-Based datatype map"
> * "OWL 2 Full interpretation" --> "OWL 2 RDF-Based interpretation"
> * "OWL 2 Full (satisfaction|satisfies)" --> "OWL 2 RDF-Based
> (satisfaction|satisfies)"
> * "OWL 2 Full (consistency|consistent)" --> "OWL 2 RDF-Based
> (concistency|consistent)"
> * "OWL 2 Full (entailment|entails)" --> "OWL 2 RDF-Based
> (entailment|entails)"
> * "OWL 2 Full semantic conditions" --> "OWL 2 RDF-Based semantic
> conditions"
> 
> 
> (Potentially) Other Affected Documents:
> ---------------------------------------
> 
> * Document Overview: NO CHANGE, AFAICS! :) The only occurrence of "OWL 2
> Full" in Section 2.3 will just fit my proposal.
> 
> * Conformance:
> ** No change concerning "OWL 2 Full ontology document".
> ** Rename "OWL 2 Full datatype map" to "OWL 2 RDF-Based Datatype
> Map". Then, the OWL 2 XXXXX Datatype Map corresponds to the OWL 2 XXXXX
> Semantics, which is fine.
> ** Somewhat unclear about "OWL 2 Full entailment checker", since this
> term is never used in the RDF-Based Semantics. My first idea was to
> rename it, since it is about entailment checking, i.e. is semantics
> related. However, then the other checkers would consequently also need
> to be renamed, and this would lead to three "different" "OWL 2 Direct
> entailment checkers" (for DL, EL, QL), and another "OWL 2 RDF-Based
> entailment checker" (RL). Also, there is also a direct correspondence
> between an OWL 2 XX entailment checker and an OWL 2 XX ontology
> document. This looks quite useful to me. So I suggest to keep the name
> as it is.
> 
> * NF&R: Looks to me that nothing has to be done there. There is only a
> reference to "OWL 1 Full", and this looks harmless to me [FIXME].
> 
> * Primer: I can see treatment of "OWL (2) Full", but I'm not yet
> familiar with the Primer, and we still have some time for it, so lets
> defer the treatment to later times.
> 
> * No other document talks about OWL (2) Full.
> 
> 
> Estimated Effort: 
> -----------------
> 
> All changes are technically easy to perform (renamings, and a little bit
> of explanation in the RDF-Based Semantics). I think that the changes to
> the RDF-Based Semantics will take me about 2 hours. The effort for
> Conformance will take hardly 15 minutes. Even less for NF&R, if any. So
> there will not be any risk for our publication schedule.
> 
> 
> References
> ----------
> 
> [1]
> <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Conformance_and_Test_Cases&oldid=21446#Syntactic_Conformance>
> [2]
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Mar/0077.html>
> [3]
> <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Document_Overview&oldid=21428#Semantics>
> [4]
> <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=RDF-Based_Semantics&oldid=21711#topic-ont-ontology>
> [5]
> <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=RDF-Based_Semantics&oldid=21711#Vocabulary_Terms>
> [6]
> <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=RDF-Based_Semantics&oldid=21711#topic-ont-ontology>
> [7]
> <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=RDF-Based_Semantics&oldid=21711#topic-intro-ontologies>
> [8]
> <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=RDF-Based_Semantics&oldid=21711#Appendix:_Changes_from_the_OWL_1_RDF-Compatible_Semantics_.28Informative.29>
> 
> 
> Please let me know (soon!) what you think of this proposal!
> 
> Regards,
> Michael
Received on Thursday, 9 April 2009 17:02:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 9 April 2009 17:02:39 GMT