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

draft response for LC comment 53

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 09:36:42 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20090213.093642.165859434.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: public-owl-wg@w3.org

[Response for LC Comment 53]

Dear Jonathan,

Thank you for your message
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Feb/0000.html
on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts.

The allowable ontologies OWL 2 DL form a syntactic subset of the OWL 2
Full ontologies.  For example, manipulation of the OWL built-in
vocabulary in certain ways is not allowable in OWL 2 DL but is allowable
in OWL 2 Full.  Similarly, use of properties as both object properties
and data properties is not allowed in OWL 2 DL but is allowed in OWL 2
Full.

Imports closures is another example where the syntax of OWL 2 DL is less
permissive than the syntax of OWL 2 Full.  In OWL 2 DL, if incompatible
ontologies are imported then the ontology is considered syntactically
invalid.  In OWL 2 Full, importing of incompatible ontologies is
syntactically valid (to allow any RDF as syntactically valid OWL 2
Full).  It is the intention of the WG that in OWL 2 Full such importing
produces semantic inconsistency, although this is not yet in the OWL 2
Full Semantics document.

This extends the situation in OWL 1, where owl:incompatibleWith had no
formal meaning, resulting in confusion as to exactly what it was
supposed to be used for.

Although the two definitions of imports (in OWL 2: Syntax and OWL 2:
RDF-Based Semantics) are different in form, they are the same in
behaviour.  The WG will modify the wording in Section 2 of the OWL 2:
RDF-Based Semantics document, which is not yet at last call, to conform
more closely to the wording in the OWL 2: Syntax document, and may
indeed make it point to the OWL 2: Syntax document.


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,
Peter F. Patel-Schneider
on behalf of the W3C OWL Working Group 
Received on Friday, 13 February 2009 14:37:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 13 February 2009 14:37:11 GMT