Re: OWL naming issues

On 25 Mar 2009, at 06:17, Ivan Herman wrote:

> (My interpretation of the situation, Ian's may be a bit different)
>
> Jonathan Rees wrote:
> [snip]
>
>> By 'any OWL 2 ontology' do you mean any instance of the Ontology  
>> UML class?
>>
>
> That is a good way of putting it, yes

See Figure 1 in the Document Overview -- it could be an instance of  
the Ontology UML class, but it could also be an RDF graph.


>
>> What is encompassed by 'OWL 2 - the entire language' ? E.g. would  
>> an OWL/XML document belong to 'OWL 2 - the entire language' ?

This is a very generic term that encompasses all aspects of the  
language. The way I think about it is that if I say "blah blah OWL 2  
blah blah", then the statement should still be true if I change any  
details of syntax or semantics occurring in the blah.

Ian


>
> OWL/XML is serialization syntax so it is pretty much orthogonal to  
> this naming. An OWL/XML, by its very definition, can be translated  
> into FS, so it represents an OWL 2 Ontology.
>
> But there are RDF graphs that use OWL 2 vocabulary terms (and for  
> which   the RDF semantics gives semantics) that cannot be  
> translated into an OWL 2 Ontology. Not many exist of those, and the  
> requirements are described in the 3rd section on the Structure and  
> Syntax document. Those RDF graphs are part of the entire language  
> of OWL 2, but are not OWL2 Ontologies. Note that both the  
> conformance document and the 'informal' terminology refers to _RDF  
> graphs_ when talking about OWL 2 Full.
>
> Ivan
>
>> Jonathan
>
> -- 
>
> 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