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

Re: 3rd Draft response to LC comment 30 (FH4)

From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 12:03:09 +0000
Message-Id: <82AC990B-E67B-4AE5-8AA6-1428B6BE8628@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Cc: "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org>, "W3C OWL Working Group" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
To: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
Another issue with the proposed response is that I don't think it  
clearly answers Frank's main concern (as I understand it), which is  
backwards compatibility of the RDF syntax. I also wonder why you talk  
about the FS being closer to FOL syntax -- I don't recall this being  
a motivation and I doubt that it is relevant to Frank or to  (m)any  
other people. Finally, w.r.t. the structural syntax, this has been  
changed in *many* respects, so I doubt that compatibility of the  
structural syntax is particularly relevant here.

I therefore suggest the following response:


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.

It is important to note that nothing changed on the RDF side, and  
that the treatment of anonymous individuals in OWL 2 is fully  
backwards compatible with that in OWL 1. Even on the structural  
syntax side, there is no change in expressive power, but we  
restructured the syntax to be in closer correspondence with RDF  
graphs to make it clearer that anonymous individuals are in direct  
correspondence with blank nodes. In the example you mentioned, for  
example, the "_:1" simply represents a blank node in the RDF graph.

We agree this isn't made very clear in the documents, and we will try  
to improve the presentation. For example, we plan to add some  
explanatory text into the New Features and Rationale document on the  
change of syntax.

We hope this answers your concerns on this particular issue.





On 20 Feb 2009, at 11:08, Michael Schneider wrote:

> Ivan wrote:
>
>> For example, one can refer to anonymous/blank nodes from
>> more than one place, hence a larger class of RDF graphs can be  
>> expressed
>> in FS.
>
> I would like to see an example for something that can now be  
> written in the Functional Syntax, for which there was no  
> corresponding way to express it in the old Abstract Syntax. The  
> global syntactic restrictions in Section 11.2 of the Structural  
> Spec are pretty restrictive, AFAICT.
>
> Michael
>
> --
> Dipl.-Inform. Michael Schneider
> Research Scientist, Dept. Information Process Engineering (IPE)
> Tel  : +49-721-9654-726
> Fax  : +49-721-9654-727
> Email: schneid@fzi.de
> WWW  : http://www.fzi.de/ipe/eng/mitarbeiter.php?id=555
>
> ====================================================================== 
> ========
>
> FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik an der Universität Karlsruhe
> Haid-und-Neu-Str. 10-14, D-76131 Karlsruhe
> Tel.: +49-721-9654-0, Fax: +49-721-9654-959
> Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
> Stiftung Az: 14-0563.1 Regierungspräsidium Karlsruhe
> Vorstand: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Rüdiger Dillmann, Dipl. Wi.-Ing. Michael  
> Flor,
> Prof. Dr. rer. nat. Dr. h.c. Wolffried Stucky, Prof. Dr. rer. nat.  
> Rudi Studer
> Vorsitzender des Kuratoriums: Ministerialdirigent Günther Leßnerkraus
>
> ====================================================================== 
> ========
>
Received on Friday, 20 February 2009 12:03:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 20 February 2009 12:03:57 GMT