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

draft response for LC comment 32 CO1

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 16:00:11 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20090219.160011.96593802.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: public-owl-wg@w3.org
[Draft Response for LC Comment 32:] CO1

Dear Chimezie,

Thank you for your message
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/0039.html
on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts.  

Arbitrary RDF graphs can include constructs that have surprising
consequences.  The reasons for these are many and varied, including
effects on the "syntax" of OWL 2.  Because there are so many ways in
which the rules could incorrect, the working group has decided not to be
more explicit in the introduction to OWL 2 RL.

There are an infinite number of RDFS axiomatic triples, so including
them all in the OWL 2 RL rules does not directly lead to an effective
rule implementation.  There are some RDFS rules that produce
consequences that are not relevant to the conclusions guaranteed by
Theorem PR1.  Listing all the "deficiencies" is not particularly easy,
and would probably only confuse the issue.  The working group has
therefore decided not to be more explicit in the preamble to Theorem
PR1.

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 

No trees are known to have been harmed in the preparation of this
response.
Received on Thursday, 19 February 2009 21:00:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 19 February 2009 21:00:22 GMT