Re: Naming issues

I believe that this proposal should be adequate as the basis of a
response.

peter


From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Subject: Fwd: Naming issues
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 12:26:52 +0000

> 
> 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 14:01:36 UTC