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

Re: [LC response] To Guus Schreiber

From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 14:11:29 +0000
Message-Id: <80C15D59-866C-4A38-B6CA-D2BAC471C055@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Cc: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
To: Christine Golbreich <cgolbrei@gmail.com>
I would vote for *not* adding such a button. NF&R is not a language  
reference, and the only reason for including an informal/friendly  
form of FS *at all* is so that readers can more easily understand the  


On 19 Mar 2009, at 13:33, Christine Golbreich wrote:

> 2009/3/19 Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>:
>> Dear Guus,
>> Thank you for your comment
>>     <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Jan/ 
>> 0084.html>
>> on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts.
>> OWL 2 is a successor of OWL and not only a successor of OWL DL.  
>> You are
>> right, however, in pointing out that this is not made sufficiently  
>> clear in
>> some documents, and that they sometimes seem to suggest that this  
>> is not the
>> case.
>> In order to address this problem the WG has added a Document  
>> Overview and
>> has revised several of the other documents. The Document Overview  
>> provides a
>> high level view of the design, making it clear that OWL 2 refers  
>> to the
>> language as a whole, that an OWL 2 ontology can be equivalently  
>> seen as an
>> RDF graph or as an abstract structure (an instance of the ontology  
>> class),
>> and that ontologies can be interpreted using either the RDF-Based  
>> semantics
>> or the Direct semantics (see our response to Frank van Harmelen  
>> [1] for more
>> on this topic).
>> Regarding the presentation of the material, the Structural  
>> Specification and
>> Functional-Style Syntax document, which is the core reference for  
>> language
>> features and usage, has been revised so that the features are  
>> illustrated
>> using examples in both functional and triple based syntaxes. The New
>> Features and Rationale document is not intended as a language  
>> reference, but
>> documents the rationale for the new features of OWL 2. In order to  
>> keep the
>> document short only the more compact functional syntax is  
>> provided. This
>> document is, however, not yet at last call, and so is still  
>> subject to
>> change.
> FS was provided in the FPWD, but it is a more informal/friendly  
> form of FS now.
> Should I put a Hide/Show button to display the FS for each feature  
> as optional?
>> We are grateful for your supportive comments regarding some of the  
>> new
>> features of OWL 2, and we hope that the changes we have made  
>> address your
>> concerns about the presentation.
>> 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
> -- 
> Christine
Received on Thursday, 19 March 2009 14:12:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:10 UTC