- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 00:45:06 -0400
- To: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Cc: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Yes. My bad. Thanks, Alan On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 3:13 PM, Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk> wrote: > The definition that refers to the mapping is only "For documents using the > RDF/XML serialization" -- this is clearly stated before the main > definitions. It then goes on to say "For documents using other > serializations ..." and to give an example of how this works for XML syntax. > > Ian > > > On 16 Mar 2009, at 17:50, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: > >> Hi Ian, >> >> As written, this doesn't seem to work. The definition says >> "successfully parsed using the canonical parsing process as defined in >> the OWL 2 Syntax specification [OWL 2 Specification] and the procedure >> for mapping from RDF graphs to the structural specification described >> in the OWL 2 Mapping to RDF Graphs [OWL 2 Mapping to RDF Graphs]". >> Then it says: "An XML document is an OWL 2 DL ontology document >> iff...". But as an XML document is not parsed using the OWL 2 Mapping >> to RDF Graphs, this can't be satisfied. >> >> -Alan >> >> >> On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 5:54 AM, Ian Horrocks >> <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk> wrote: >>> >>> Dear Jeremy, >>> >>> Thank you for your comment >>> >>> >>> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Feb/0008.html> >>> on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts. >>> >>> Thank you for pointing out this problem. The Syntactic Conformance >>> section >>> of the Conformance and Test Cases document (see [1]) has been revised to >>> be >>> clearer in general and to rectify these problems in particular. The main >>> definitions of the different kinds of ontology documents now refer >>> explicitly to the RDF/XML syntax and are now complete definitions, e.g.: >>> >>> "An OWL 2 DL ontology document is an OWL 2 Full ontology document that >>> can >>> be successfully parsed using the canonical parsing process as defined in >>> the >>> OWL 2 Syntax specification [OWL 2 Specification] and the procedure for >>> mapping from RDF graphs to the structural specification described in the >>> OWL >>> 2 Mapping to RDF Graphs [OWL 2 Mapping to RDF Graphs] to produce an >>> instance >>> of the OWL 2 ontology class satisfying all of the restrictions described >>> in >>> Section 3 of the OWL 2 Syntax specification [OWL 2 Specification]." >>> >>> Similarly, the example is now specific to the XML syntax. It says "An XML >>> document is an OWL 2 DL ontology document iff [certain conditions are >>> met]"; >>> i.e., an XML document is an OWL 2 DL ontology document if said conditions >>> are met, and it is not an OWL 2 DL ontology document if said conditions >>> are >>> not met. >>> >>> [1] >>> >>> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Conformance_and_Test_Cases#Syntactic_Conformance >>> >>> 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, >>> Ian Horrocks >>> on behalf of the W3C OWL Working Group >>> >>> >>> >>> > >
Received on Tuesday, 17 March 2009 04:45:44 UTC