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
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

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. 

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

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