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

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

From: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 11:03:00 +0200
Message-ID: <0EF30CAA69519C4CB91D01481AEA06A00125F746@judith.fzi.de>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Hi Peter!

>-----Original Message-----
>From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org]
>On Behalf Of Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 7:02 PM
>To: Michael Schneider
>Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
>Subject: Re: Occurrences of "OWL 2 Full" in our documents
>
>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.

Yes, thanks. Changed to "... OWL 2" there.

>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.

Yes, this resulted in a few minor changes.

>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'')".

Having a more distinguishing name instead of just "vocabulary" is a good idea, IMO,
in order to avoid, e.g., confusion with the vocabularies of the Functional Syntax
or the OWL/XML syntax. I can see, however, a few slight issues with the concrete 
suggestion "RDF-graph vocabulary". 

First, I would then like to generally call the vocabularies of other RDF semantics 
in the way "XXX RDF-graph vocabulary" as well. But this would sound strange for 
XXX := "RDF(S)".

So I thought "graph vocabulary" might be good. But then, I remembered that the RDF Semantics
(in Section 0.3) already talks about a "vocabulary of a graph" (in contrast to a vocabulary
of an interpretation), and I have called this a "graph vocabulary" myself several times
in the past.

But, after all, isn't the most distinguishing aspect of the RDF/RDFS/OWL 1/2 vocabularies 
that they consist of URI/IRIs? They don't have much to do with RDF graphs. So why not 
simply call them "IRI vocabularies"? This seems to at least avoid confusion with our
other syntaxes.

>If the sentence above was then removed from the Introduction

Agreed, this was a strange beast, anyway, so it's good to have it removed.

(I filled the gap with a sentence mentioning datatypes and facets, 
which are also treated in the "Vocabulary" section.)

>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.

Removed!

Ok, here is the complete diff:

  <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=RDF-Based_Semantics&diff=21795&oldid=21756>

It's a lot, but the three most interesting changes are those in the Introduction (§1), in Section 2.1, and in the "Changes" section (§9). In all cases, I basically reused the formulation from the Document Overview of the form "RDF graph interpreted using the RDF-Based Semantics" (in slight variants) for referring to "OWL 2 Full". 

Is this ok? Then we (I?) can adjust the "Conformance" document accordingly, and afterwards we seem to be ready to go.

>peter

Cheers,
Michael

>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).

--
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 Friday, 10 April 2009 09:03:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 10 April 2009 09:03:42 GMT