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

Re: draft response for LC comment 51 RM1 and 62 JM1

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 15:10:52 +0100
Message-ID: <499EB9EC.8090907@w3.org>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
CC: public-owl-wg@w3.org
s/OWL 2 Full/RDF-Based Semantics/g

We have no definition yet in the current documents for OWL 2 Full either:-(

Thanks and sorry to be so difficult:-)

ivan

Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> Hmm.  OWL 2 DL is the functional syntax including the global restrictions.
> 
> 
> How about:
> 
> 
> Naming data ranges is not possible in the functional syntax.  Named data
> ranges can cause problems in the direct semantics if there are loops in
> the definitions.  Because of this kind of problem the WG did not do much
> exploration of adding named data ranges to the functional syntax.
> 
> In OWL 2 Full, it is of course possible to "name" a node that
> corresponds to a data range, so in the above triples, the blank node
> with label _:x could be replaced with a regular node with IRI
> ex:GreaterThan65.  This IRI could be used just as any other
> datatype/class IRI in OWL 2 Full.
> 
> 
> peter
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: draft response for LC comment 62 JM1
> Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 11:34:36 +0100
> 
>> Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>>> I believe that your changes are less accurate and less true than the
>>> original.  I tried to be very careful to craft a response that was
>>> accurate no matter how any naming issues are resolved.  In particular,
>>> it is not a good idea to refer to the direct semantics here.
>>>
>> I would like to understand... OWL 2 DL (though nowhere defined in the
>> current documents:-( is equal to OWL 2 with Direct Semantics, isn't
>> (modulo the necessary restrictions). ??
>>
>> Ivan
>>
>>> peter
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
>>> Subject: Re: draft response for LC comment 62 JM1
>>> Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 09:47:35 +0100
>>>
>>>> Until our naming issue is solved, the exact relationships of OWL DL,
>>>> Full, FS are still a bit fuzzy and not 100% clear in the current
>>>> documents. Also, your first sentence also suggests some sort of a
>>>> primary role of syntax over DL:-(
>>>>
>>>> May I suggest a slight re-write? Like:
>>>>
>>>> [[[
>>>> Some naming of data ranges could be permitted in the Direct Semantics of
>>>> OWL 2, but one has to be careful about creating data range loops. The WG
>>>> did not explore adding this functionality and hence adding this extra
>>>> syntax and extra complication to the functional syntax.
>>>>
>>>> In the RDF syntax, and hence in the RDF bases semantics of OWL 2, it is
>>>> of course possible to "name" a node that corresponds to a data range.
>>>> This IRI could be used just as any other datatype/class IRI in the RDF
>>>> based semantics OWL 2 with no problems.
>>>>
>>>> So you are not missing anything, at least so far as the functional
>>>> syntax is concerned.
>>>> ]]]
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>>
>>>> Ivan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>>>>> [Draft Response for LC Comment 62] JM1 
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Jonas,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for your message
>>>>>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Feb/0010.html
>>>>> on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your comment is related to another last-call comment
>>>>>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/0059.html
>>>>> and this response is the essentially same as the relevant portion of the 
>>>>> response to that comment, archived at
>>>>>   ....................
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Naming data ranges is not possible in the functional syntax, and thus is
>>>>> not possible in OWL 2 DL.  Some naming of data ranges could be
>>>>> permitted in OWL 2 DL, but one has to be careful about creating data
>>>>> range loops.  The WG did not explore adding this extra syntax and extra
>>>>> complication to the functional syntax.
>>>>>
>>>>> In OWL 2 Full, it is of course possible to "name" a node that
>>>>> corresponds to a data range.  This IRI could be used just as any other
>>>>> datatype/class IRI in OWL 2 Full with no problems.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So you are not missing anything, at least so far as the functional
>>>>> syntax is concerned.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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 
>>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>>
>>>> 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

-- 

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


Received on Friday, 20 February 2009 14:11:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 20 February 2009 14:11:29 GMT