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

Re: draft response for LC comment 53

From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 14:18:49 +0000
Message-Id: <217F484C-7DF3-4FD8-B826-DFC8101A96A8@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Cc: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>, W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
To: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Sounds good to me.

Michael: any comment?

Ian


On 13 Feb 2009, at 14:36, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

>
> [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 Monday, 16 February 2009 14:19:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 16 February 2009 14:19:36 GMT