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

Re: draft response for LC comment 26 (a and b)

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 12:01:48 +0100
Message-ID: <4996A49C.9070407@w3.org>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
CC: public-owl-wg@w3.org

Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> Here is a draft response for all of the comment from Lilly (SS1a and
> SS1b).  I put them both together largely because no document changes are
> being proposed (except for removing an extraneous word for Syntax, which
> I have already done).  
> The response for LC comment 37 could just point to this response.
> peter
> [Response for LC Comment 26:]
> Dear Susie,
> Thank you for your message
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Jan/0033.html
> on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts.

This is not the right link! I guess you meant:


(comments vs. wg:-)

> 1/ Concerning OWL 2 Profiles:
> The OWL 2 effort was designed to extend the constructs of OWL to
> encompass those that users had asked for, that researchers could
> specify, and that implementers had or could implement.  It is thus
> definitely the case that OWL 2 is supported by research.  However, the
> driving force was much more users and implementers.
> The OWL profiles had a similar genesis.  If the driving force behind the
> OWL profiles was primarily research, then there could have been many
> more profiles, and the profiles would have had a different focus.
> This is particularly the case for OWL RL.  OWL RL is designed to capture
> the essence of several partial implementations of OWL functionality by
> means of forward chaining rules.  Previously all that could be said
> about these implementations was that they were partial implementations
> of OWL.  OWL RL provides a much more complete characterization for
> rule-based implementations of OWL.  Yes, there are formal results
> underlying OWL RL, but these formal results are descriptive of the
> extant implementations instead of being driving forces for the design of
> OWL EL and OWL QL also do have a formal basis.  However they again are
> attempts to capture existing implementation techniques and existing
> ontologies.  
> In any case, the OWL 2 profiles are simply there for those who may be
> interested taking exploiting desirable characteristics of
> implementations of the profiles.  If one does not care about these,
> there is no need to consider the profiles at all.
> The OWL WG does not intend to make any changes in response to this
> part of your message.

Although I do not disagree with what you write, I wonder whether we
should not hold off with this part of the response, until the situation
with QL becomes final. I had some comments, Uli is currently in
discussion with the DL Lite experts, and that may lead to changes on QL.
Maybe those changes will also be influenced by her remark on "very
challenging to teach system developers to use new OWL2, in particular,
identifying different subsets of OWL2 for developers with limited logic
background." This remark certainly came up in the discussions with Uli
and the other experts...


> 2/ Concerning the Structural Specification and Functional-Style Syntax:
> Thank you for your kind words on the introduction and other parts of
> this document.  Also thank you for bringing to our attention the
> extraneous word in Section 2.3.
> There is no notion of ownership of entities in OWL, so "ownership" is
> not transferred with imports.  It is the case, however, that entities in
> imported ontologies can be used in the importing ontology just as if the
> contents of the imported ontology were part of the importing ontology.
> The situation with -0 and +0 is unique, and is dictated by the treatment
> of floats in XML Schema datatypes.  There are no other similar
> situations.  The literals for booleans are similarly dictated by XML
> Schema datatypes.  If "yes" and "no" are added to the XML Schema
> datatype boolean, they will then be available in OWL.
> 3/ Mapping to RDF Graphs:
> It is definitely the case that mapping from the Functional Syntax to an
> RDF graph and back again does not affect the meaning of an OWL 2
> ontology.  The OWL WG expended considerable effort to make this mapping
> as general as possible and to specify it in more detail than previously.
> 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 


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 Saturday, 14 February 2009 11:02:22 UTC

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