Re: draft response for 52b / JR6b

I have an additional point. Jonathan also says:

[[[
I have no idea what an RDF graph that is not well-formed would be.
The cited document uses "well-formed" in several different ways, none
of which is what I think you mean.  Please delete all occurrences of
"well-formed" from this document unless you can provide or cite a
particular definition.
]]]

I think it is worth referring to the fact that the new version of the
Syntax document will give a more explicit lists of those restrictions
that allow RDF graphs to be mapped back to the Structure. (With the
assumption that this is what we meant by 'well-formed' in this context.)

Ivan

Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> [Draft Response for LC Comment 52b:] JR6b
> 
> Dear Jonathan:
> Thank you for your message
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/0068.html>
> on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts.
> 
> Some of your comments in the message relate to specific editorial
> concerns with the RDF-Based Semantics document.  These comments are
> being addressed in another reply.  This response addresses only your
> comments about the use of "OWL 2", "OWL 2 DL", and "OWL 2 Full".
> 
> The working group realizes that our documents did not do a good job of
> describing the terminology related to OWL 2.  To alleviate this problem
> there is now a new document, the Document Overview
> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Document_Overview/.
> 
> The structure of OWL 2 ontologies is defined in the OWL 2 Structural
> Specification.  The Direct Semantics provides a meaning for these
> structures.  The RDF-Based Semantics provides a meaning for all RDF
> graphs.  As all OWL 2 ontologies can be mapped into RDF graphs, the
> RDF-Based Semantics also provides a semantics for all OWL 2 ontologies.
> 
> OWL 2 DL ontologies are those OWL 2 ontologies that admit reasoning
> using well-known DL techniques when interpreted using the Direct
> Semantics, and that can be mapped to RDF graphs and back again without
> affecting their meaning in the Direct Semantics.  The OWL 2 Structural
> Specification provides a comprehensive and compact list of the extra
> conditions that are required for an OWL 2 ontology to be an OWL 2 DL
> ontology.
> 
> OWL 2 Full refers to the view of RDF graphs (including all OWL 2
> ontologies) under the RDF-Based Semantics, and thus, as you say, is a
> combination of both syntax and semantics.
> 
> Several other documents have been edited to better describe how OWL
> works.The relevant edits have ended up being interspersed with other
> work, so no diff are provided here.  The current working drafts of all
> the WG documents are linked to from the WG home page.
> 
> 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