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

Fwd: Naming issues

From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 12:26:52 +0000
Message-Id: <BA338FA8-1C2E-4D75-8988-95501FACEA32@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
To: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>

I would appreciate *some* feedback on this proposal, even if it is  
only to say that you (dis-) like it.

Thanks,
Ian


Begin forwarded message:

> Resent-From: public-owl-wg@w3.org
> From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
> Date: 3 February 2009 10:11:52 GMT
> To: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
> Subject: Naming issues
>
>
> Several of the LC comments raise the issue of the inconsistent use  
> of and/or distinction between "OWL2", "OWL2 DL" and OWL2 Full". For  
> example, [28] points out that the Direct Semantics says: "This  
> document provides the direct model-theoretic semantics for OWL 2",  
> and "Since OWL 2 is an extension of OWL DL ...". Other comments  
> alluding to this problem include [48].
>
> Having talked to Ivan and others about this I would like to offer  
> the following suggestion as a way to address the comments.
>
> In Syntax:
>
> 1) Check the list near the beginning of Section 3 to ensure that it  
> includes *all* conditions on ontologies that are mentioned  
> elsewhere in the document, and change it to be a numbered list so  
> that the various conditions can be more easily referred to.
>
> 2) Add some text explaining the effect of (not) satisfying various  
> sub-sets of the restrictions. E.g., restrictions x, y and z are  
> needed if the Direct Semantics is to be applicable. We can also  
> state that ontologies not satisfying any of these restrictions can  
> still be serialised as RDF and interpreted using the RDF-based  
> Semantics.
>
> 3) Check the text in this and other documents for "inappropriate"  
> use of "OWL2", changing to "OWL2 DL/Full" and/or adding references  
> back to Semantics Section 3 as needed.
>
> 4) Carefully proof read the various documents to ensure there are  
> no further ambiguities such as inconsistent use of the word  
> "ontology", and if any are found, work on fixes.
>
> Ian
>
> [28] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/ 
> 2009Jan/0035.html
> [48] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Jan/ 
> 0084.html
>
Received on Monday, 9 February 2009 12:27:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 9 February 2009 12:27:27 GMT