Re: 2nd Draft response to LC comment 30 (FH4)

+1

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: 2nd Draft response to LC comment 30 (FH4)
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 10:19:15 +0000

> It seems fine. I a friendly amendment (take it or leave it; I don't
> require a reply either way).
> 
> On 19 Feb 2009, at 09:18, Ivan Herman wrote:
> 
>> After the discussion yesterday, here is my draft. (The wiki page has
>> also been updated).
>>
>> Ivan
>>
>> -------------------------------
>> To: Frank van Harmelen <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>
>> CC: public-owl-comments@w3.org
>> Subject: [LC response] To Frank van Harmelen
>>
>> Dear Frank,
>>
>> Thank you for your comment
>>
>> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/0037.html>
>> on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts.
>>
>> We also note the 'addendum' to your original comment in
>>
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Feb/0014.html
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Feb/0014.html>
> 
>> And we thank you for helping us avoiding further confusion on this
>> issue.
>>
>> Indeed, as you note in your second mail, the current Functional Syntax
>> (FS) notation uses the _:x syntax to denote anonymous individuals. This
>> is a consequence of the way the new, functional syntax works.
>>
>> The primary motivation of changing from the OWL 1 abstract syntax (AS)
>> to the OWL 2 FS was that the FS is closer to the syntax used in first
>> order logic, which makes various specification issues as well as
>> relating OWL 2 abstract constructs to the general literature easier. As
>> the primary role of the FS is to _define_ the structure of OWL 2 (and
>> not necessarily to serve as a serialization syntax), the clarity of the
>> syntax was an important factor for choosing it.
> 
> """In general, in Semantic Web specifications, there has been
> convergence on
> using "nodeIDs" to represent blank nodes in linear syntax. Several
> readers found
> the implicit blank nodes of the AS (i.e., a blank node was indicated by
> missing names)
> quite confusing, so we regard the shift, necessitated by the change in
> statement style
> as independently helpful."""
> 
> As I say, this is merely a suggestion and I defer to your editorial
> judgment. I think the response is fine and think it's ready to go.
> 
> Cheers,
> Bijan.
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 19 February 2009 19:38:38 UTC