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

Re: OWL Full Features in QRG

From: Peter F.Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 12:14:16 -0400
Message-ID: <20090520.121416.151841200.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: <baojie@gmail.com>
CC: <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
I fail to see the rationale for including these things in a *Quick*
Reference Guide, particularly as the document was supposed to be a
"cheat sheet" to assist in the writing of OWL 2 ontologies.  In
particular, I would think that a "Quick" Reference Guide should be about
best current practices, which would strongly argue against including
this vocabulary.

That said, I would not strongly oppose upgrading and renaming Section
4.2 to include the three extra vocabulary members, although my
preference is, as before, to not have any part of Section 4 in the

I do not see that there is any information that you have provided that
would overturn a specific decision of the working group.


From: Jie Bao <baojie@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: OWL Full Features in QRG (was Re: Issue-104)
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 10:54:30 -0500

> WG
> I have met with RPI AC today and was instructed that RPI would like to
> see the additional OWL vocabulary that is only used in OWL 2 Full in
> QRG. The leading rationale is that the QRG should also serve users who
> use those terms, especially from the RDF world, and those who have
> used them in OWL 1 so that they will not be misled to think those
> features are deprecated in OWL 2.
> The Additional Vocabulary in OWL 2 Full (as far as I know) is:
> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Talk:Quick_Reference_Guide#Additional_Vocabulary_in_OWL_2_Full
> Jie
> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de> wrote:
>> Hi Jie!
>> To repeat what I said in the telco concerning ontology properties: I would
>> not mention the term "owl:OntologyProperty" at all in the QRG. I would
>> further treat the "ontology properties" (as they are only called in the
>> RDF-Based Semantics) as "annotation properties", because they are called so
>> in the Structural Spec. (I can see that you have already put them in their
>> own table "Annotation Properties for Ontologies", which looks reasonable to
>> me, but other people may have other opinions.)
>> I'm a bit unsure about the other terms. What's the arguments against having
>> them just in the normal tables (not in a separate table), and perhaps have
>> some small marker tagging them as "for compatibility reasons"?
>> Michael
>> Jie Bao wrote:
>>>OK. Since all the response so far are against including RDF
>>>vocabulary, I'm happy to remove them.
>>>How about just list the 5 OWL terms:
>>>owl:DataRange, owl:distinctMembers, owl:OntologyProperty,
>>>owl:DeprecatedClass, owl:DeprecatedProperty
>>>And indicate that owl:DataRange is deprecated in OWL 2, but others are
>>>As to the name of the section, I still prefer "Additional Vocabulary
>>>in OWL 2 Full" than the alternative proposal of "Compatibility
>>>Vocabulary", because the later may lead some people to think that
>>>those terms are not encouraged to use.
Received on Wednesday, 20 May 2009 16:14:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:12 UTC