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

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

From: Christine Golbreich <cgolbrei@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2009 11:12:23 +0100
Message-ID: <b0ed1d660902150212g3c6abf9fh4b429dbdaf9295ae@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
Seems good, specially concerning the actual role of users and 'implementors'
in the OWL 2 Profiles and in particular for RL where, making implementations
on top of rule extended DBMS possible, e.g. ORACLE, is clear. Perhaps point
to a concrete example ?

Given the sentence in Lilly's comment "... in particular, identifying
different subsets of OWL2 for developers with limited logic background. ..."
it might be welcome to add that profile checkers* are on the way that will
offer such functionality and allow them for checking just as they did
before with Protégé for OWL 1 species ( Lite, DL, Full).


* as pointed out by

2009/2/14 Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>

> 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.
> 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.
> 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

Received on Sunday, 15 February 2009 10:12:59 UTC

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