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

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

From: Christine Golbreich <cgolbrei@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 10:22:59 +0100
Message-ID: <b0ed1d660902200122x4431253boec5f3ecbcc396b6e@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Cc: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
see below

2009/2/20 Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>:
> Christine,
>
> Christine Golbreich wrote:
>> Thanks.
>>
>> All seems good. Howvere, I'm not sure that the second section "The
>> primary motivation of changing from the OWL 1 abstract syntax (AS)
>> ..."  is needed in that response. Unless there is extra info that I
>> don't know or missed, AS vs FS was not expliciley raised in the 2
>> quoted emails (1st or 2nd). I'd be inclined to remove it to remain
>> focused on their explicit content and not to extend our response to
>> that.
>>
>
> Frank explicitly raised that in
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Feb/0014.html
>
> see point (b) at the end of the mail. My draft addresses both the
> original comment and this one, hence we have to answer this.

>From the context of the email
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Feb/0014.html
and the sentence "I'm not in itself objecting to this new syntax"
standing above (b),  I (perhaps wrongly) understood that the term
'syntax' in (b) only refered to the specific syntax for anonymous and
that (b) meant that no reason was given for   'named nodes', not in
general  for the new FS syntax vs AS.
But perhaps I misunderstood some subtility and you are right!

>> Nevertheless, since I believe it's highly relevant to document this
>> issue somewhere in our docs, we may add something similar in the
>> Syntax or/and in  NF&R. I have added it in the new drafted section 3
>> of NF&R [1].
>>
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/New_Features_and_Rationale#Other_Design_Choices_and_Rationale
>>
>
> I will be a bit vaguer than that. That we will add something on this
> issue into the F&R is good to point out. But I would not want to refer
> explicitly to any URI yet, because the text therein may not be final yet
> and if Frank goes there _today_, it may raise more confusions.
>
> I had some extra discussion with Alan and Ian yesterday, I will prepare
> a slightly reworded version of the answer later today. Stay tuned.
>
> Thanks
>
> Ivan
>
>>
>> Christine
>>
>> 2009/2/19 Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>:
>>> 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
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> As for the usability of AS in OWL 2: if used as an exchange syntax then,
>>> of course, OWL 1 ontologies written in AS may be input to OWL 2 tools
>>> and remain valid ontologies. But we must emphasize that this is an issue
>>> of the tool providers: the only _required_ exchange syntax for OWL 2
>>> ontologies being RDF/XML, it is up to the tools to decide whether they
>>> would accept ontologies serialized in AS (or in FS, for that matter).
>>>
>>> We hope this answers your concerns on this particular issue
>>>
>>> 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,
>>> Ivan Herman
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
>
> 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
>



-- 
Christine
Received on Friday, 20 February 2009 09:23:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 20 February 2009 09:23:35 GMT