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

RDF-Based Semantics ready for WG-internal Review

From: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 22:41:36 +0200
Message-ID: <0EF30CAA69519C4CB91D01481AEA06A0011DA1CB@judith.fzi.de>
To: "W3C OWL Working Group" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Cc: "W3C OWL Chairs" <team-owl-chairs@w3.org>, "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, "Alan Wu" <alan.wu@oracle.com>
Dear all, Dear Reviewers! 

I'm happy to announce that the OWL 2 RDF-Based Semantics is now ready for WG-internal review.

 <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=RDF-Based_Semantics&oldid=20977>

However, there are two issues that SHOULD be resolved before LC publication. I regard these issues to go beyond my job as an editor. There are also EdNotes on these issues placed at the beginning of the document, that will only be there within the internal review phase.

1) Naming-Issue:
While the semantics is now consistently referred to as the "OWL 2 RDF-Based Semantics" in the whole document, there are still a lot of occurrences of the word "OWL (1/2) Full" in the document, typically as a prefix of some term. I did some thinking on each of these occurrences, but whichever decision I would take, the outcome would look rather messy to me. For the moment, I have called the old semantics "OWL RDF-Compatible Semantics", as this better mirrors the name "OWL 2 RDF-Based Semantics" and since this was the name of the chapter of S&AS. But I am not a big fan of this renaming, in particular since this chapter actually defines *two* allegedly RDF compatible semantics! Eventually, I decided to stop with my reflection on the names and hope for feedback by the WG on this issue, primarily by my reviewers. But, after all, I am unhappy with the current naming situation for the RDF-Based Semantics, and would prefer to simply call the semantics and the document "OWL 2 Full Semantics". This would at least lead to a consistent naming scheme in the document.

2) Nary Datatypes:
Recently, I had some discussion with Ivan on the semantics for the n-ary stub. The problem is that simply following the way as it is defined in the Direct Semantics is technically not possible for the RDF-Based Semantics, and it would be a non-trivial task to extend the basic framework of the RDF Semantics to support this (though possible in principle). My first question here is: What is the status of the n-ary stub in the Direct Semantics concerning normativity? Is it necessary for an implementer of a conformant "OWL 2 DL entailment checker" to support, for example, n-ary property restrictions, or n-ary datatype complements? Dependent on the answer to this question, I will try to come up with a solution (maybe with a little help from my friends :)).

Best Regards,
Michael

--
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
=======================================================================




Received on Sunday, 29 March 2009 20:42:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 29 March 2009 20:42:24 GMT