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

Re: DRAFT response to comment #54, Jan Wielemaker

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 08:04:29 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20090211.080429.196533258.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: ivan@w3.org
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org

Looks good.


From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Subject: DRAFT response to comment #54, Jan Wielemaker
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 11:38:55 +0100

> This response is, actually, a possible pattern for a number of other
> comments on the exact role of OWL/XML. Ie, if this is fine for the
> group, we may want to reuse, essentially, the same text for a number of
> others (to be exactly identified).
> The reason I chose this one is because Jan did _not_ question the rec
> track aspect of OWL/XML per se (in contrast to, eg, the corresponding
> UvA comment). In this sense this one is simpler...
> Here is the proposed text. I have also updated
> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/JR8.
> Ivan
> ========
> Dear Jan,
> Thank you for your comment
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/0069.html>
> on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts.
> Unfortunately, your comment is based on a confusion, which is our fault
> in not conveying the message clearly enough. The technical fact is that
> there is no change between OWL 1 and OWL 2 in terms of the stack you
> refer to in your comment.
> Indeed, Section 2.1 of the Conformance and Test Cases document states
> the following:
> "Several syntaxes have been defined for OWL 2 ontology documents, some
> or all of which could be used by OWL 2 tools for exchanging documents.
> However, conformant OWL 2 tools that take ontology documents as input(s)
> must accept ontology documents using the RDF/XML serialization [OWL 2
> Mapping to RDF Graphs], and conformant OWL 2 tools that publish ontology
> documents must, if possible, be able to publish them in the RDF/XML
> serialization if asked to do so (e.g., via HTTP content negotiation)."
> See:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-owl2-test-20081202/#Conformance_.28Normative.29
> In other words, the only _required_ exchange syntax among OWL 2 tools is
> based on RDF and is RDF/XML (the only small caveat, referred to by the
> 'if possible' remark in the text, is that there are valid RDF graphs
> that cannot be serialized into RDF/XML, eg, if complex URI-s are used
> for property IDs). Ie, the situation has _not_ changed compared to OWL 1.
> The confusion obviously comes from the fact that the OWL/XML syntax,
> which was published as a note[1] for OWL 1, is now on Recommendation
> track. OWL/XML for OWL 1 was an optional feature that OWL 1 tools could
> implement if they wished to do so. The fact that OWL/XML is now planned
> as a recommendation has not changed this.
> All that being said, the Working Group recognizes that this issue may
> lead to confusion, as witnessed by a number of comments that expressed
> the same concerns as yours. The group will take appropriate steps in
> conveying this information better by, eg, including multi-syntax formats
> into the functional specification, or making the situation clearer in
> the appropriate status sections. Details of these steps are not yet
> decided at this time.
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-xmlsyntax/
> Please acknowledge receipt of this email to
> <mailto:public-owl-comments@w3.org> (replying to this email should
> suffice). In your acknowledgment please let us know whether or not you
> are satisfied with the working group's response to your comment.
> Regards,
> Ivan Herman
> on behalf of the W3C OWL Working Group
> ===========
> -- 
> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> mobile: +31-641044153
> PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Wednesday, 11 February 2009 13:04:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:09 UTC