RE: completed draft response for LC comment 21 JDB2

Hi!

I had two minor edits in the "RDF-Based Semantics" section: 

 
<http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=LC_Responses%2FJDB2&diff=19
601&oldid=19593>

Now ready to go from my side.

Michael

>-----Original Message-----
>From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org]
>On Behalf Of Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 1:32 AM
>To: public-owl-wg@w3.org
>Subject: completed draft response for LC comment 21 JDB2
>
>[Draft Response for LC Comment 21] JDB2
>
>Dear Jos,
>
>Thank you for your message
><http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-
>comments/2009Jan/0024.html>
>on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts.
>
>
>Anchors have been added in many places, feel free to ask for more, as
>adding anchors changes neither the form nor the meaning of the
>documents.
>The general form of the anchors are def_<term_with_underscores>, but
>this was not feasible in all cases.   The documents provide anchors for
>each section which can also be used in other documents.
>
>Diffs are not provided here for all changes, as the addition of anchors
>may have been interspersed with other work on the documents.
>
>Initial diffs for Direct Semantics can be found at:
>http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Direct_Semantics&diff=17
>912&oldid=17717
>Initial diffs for Syntax can be found at:
>http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Syntax&diff=17910&oldid=
>17665
>
>
>Structural Specification and Functional Syntax document:
>
>The discussion of datatype maps in Section 4 of the Specification
>document is not a formal one, it concentrates on those parts of datatype
>maps that are needed for the syntax, deferring formal discussion to
>Section 2 of the Direct Semantics document.  It is thus appropriate that
>Section 4 of the Syntax document does not explicitly call out the
>semantic mappings that are part of datatype maps, only alluding to their
>presence.
>
>The precisionDecimal datatype of XML Schema perhaps could have been
>included in OWL 2.  However, the definition of equality and order on
>precisionDecimal does not appear to be what would be desired in a
>representational setting (which would instead be based on viewing
>elements of the datatype as ranges of numbers).
>
>Due to several comments and implementation experience, hexBinary and
>base64Binary now have disjoint value spaces, so there is no difference
>from XML Schema.  This is a change to OWL 2.
>
>The OWL WG agrees that PNG would be preferable to GIF.  However, GIF is
>acceptable to W3C and the figures have been generated using tools that
>only produce GIF.
>
>
>Direct Semantics document:
>
>Full linking from the Direct Semantics is a major task, which would, for
>example, include linking syntax.  Links have been added in the
>Vocabulary section. The diffs are
>http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Direct_Semantics&diff=17
>913&oldid=17912
>
>The definition for datatype maps in Direct Semantics extends datatype
>maps from RDF Semantics, in particular for facets.
>
>The wording "satisfies appropriate conditions listed in the following
>sections" in Section 2.3 has been changed to "satisfies the condition in
>the tables below for the axiom". The diffs are
>http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Direct_Semantics&diff=17
>914&oldid=17913
>
>Axiom closure is defined in Syntax.  A link to the definition has been
>added where the term is used. The diffs are
>http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Direct_Semantics&diff=17
>915&oldid=17914
>
>If the document was being rewritten from scratch, the subsections of
>section 2.3 might not be needed, but they seem to be innocuous and will
>stay for now.
>
>The definition of axiom closure from Syntax includes "renaming apart" so
>the parentheses in 2.3.6 are appropriate.
>
>Section 2.5 now includes a standard definition for variables and the
>definition of Boolean Query Answering notes that quantification needs to
>be considered.  The diffs are
>http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Direct_Semantics&diff=17
>918&oldid=17915
>
>In Section 3 "is is" has been replaced by "is".  No diffs are available
>for this interesting change.
>
>The second edition of the DL handbook is now referenced.  Again no diffs
>are available for this useful change.
>
>"I" is uniformly used as a signal for an interpretation, instead of
>sometimes Int and sometimes I.  The diffs are
>http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Direct_Semantics&diff=17
>932&oldid=17923
>
>The above changes are all editorial.
>
>
>Profiles document:
>
>As stated in the document, OWL 2 RL is designed for easy and efficient
>implementation using existing forward-chaining rule systems.  Adding
>owl:Thing or reflexive object properties needs rules that operate over
>all individuals, which goes against efficiency, and may not even be
>possible in some rule systems.  Similarly, most rule systems are
>designed for positive ground facts which dictates against allowing
>negative property assertions.
>
>The phrase "General concepts of the language" has been replaced by an
>explicit pointer to Section 13.1 of Syntax. This change was done in two
>phases:
>http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Profiles&diff=prev&oldid
>=19186
>and
>http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Profiles&diff=19552&oldi
>d=19193
>
>The non-terminal subObjectPropertyExpressions is used uniformly
>throughout the document set, but it really should be
>subObjectPropertyExpression.  This is only a change to a non-terminal in
>the grammar, which is an editorial change.  The diffs are:
>http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Profiles&diff=18708&oldi
>d=18687
>http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Syntax&diff=18707&oldid=
>18533
>
>The above changes are all editorial.
>
>
>RDF-Based Semantics document:
>
>As a general note, please be aware that the RDF-Based Semantics is not
>yet a Last Call working draft, and it has received considerable editing
>since the last publication in December.
>
>It is indeed intended to have the same set of datatypes and facets in
>the RDF-Based Semantics spec as in the Structural Specification. The
>working group agrees that this should be more explicitly stated, since
>it does not easily follow from the text in the published working
>draft. Therefore, the working group plans to add clarifying text in the
>next published working draft.
>
>Note that the OWL 2 RDF-Based Semantics aims for full compatibility with
>the semantics defined in the RDF Semantics specification. The
>semantics there already provides notions of datatypes and datatype maps,
>and defines certain semantic conditions for them. In particular, as for
>OWL 1 Full, the central definition of an OWL 2 Full interpretation
>provided in the RDF-Based Semantics document builds on top of the
>definition of a so called "D-interpretation", as defined in the RDF
>Semantics specification, and by this the existing definitions of
>datatypes and datatype maps from the RDF Semantics specification are
>reused.
>
>Further, since OWL 2 provides for the new concept of datatype facets,
>the definition of a datatype, as given in the RDF Semantics
>specification, has been extended by the notion of a facet
>space. Extending the definition of a datatype is explicitly permitted by
>the RDF Semantics specification (see section 5.1 of [2]).
>
>Nevertheless, it is true that the different concepts used in the
>definition of the extension for facets did not well match the concepts
>used in the Direct Semantics specification in the last published working
>draft. This is currently under revision, and the final outcome will be
>that the different concepts are compatible with each other in that the
>different notions of datatype maps can be easily transformed in each
>other.
>
>Thank you for pointing out the typographical error "an OWL", it will be
>fixed in the next publication.
>
>The purpose of Section 6 of the RDF Semantics is to show how the two
>semantics of OWL 2, the RDF-Based Semantics and the Direct Semantics,
>relate to each other. There is corresponding material in the OWL 1
>recommendations.  Be informed that at the time of the last publication,
>this section was in a very early and incomplete state. A final and much
>enhanced version of this section is planned for the next publication.
>
>
>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
>Michael Schneider
>on behalf of the W3C OWL Working Group

--
Dipl.-Inform. Michael Schneider
Research Scientist, Dept. Information Process Engineering (IPE)
Tel  : +49-721-9654-726
Fax  : +49-721-9654-727
Email: michael.schneider@fzi.de
WWW  : http://www.fzi.de/michael.schneider
=======================================================================
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, Az 14-0563.1, RP Karlsruhe
Vorstand: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Rüdiger Dillmann, Dipl. Wi.-Ing. Michael Flor,
Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Wolffried Stucky, Prof. Dr. Rudi Studer
Vorsitzender des Kuratoriums: Ministerialdirigent Günther Leßnerkraus
=======================================================================