RE: draft response for 52b / JR6b

As far as the RDF-Based Semantics document is concerned, I have removed all 
occurrences of the term "well-formed" quite some time ago.

I'll do my part on an answer to Jonathan, if I ever manage to dig through this 
huge pile of emails that I am buried under at the moment...

Michael

>-----Original Message-----
>From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org]
>On Behalf Of Ivan Herman
>Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 10:39 AM
>To: Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
>Subject: 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