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

Re: OWL Full Features in QRG

From: Jie Bao <baojie@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 14:01:10 -0400
Message-ID: <b6b357670905201101qd3376f0ue8e5ede4b0227d31@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Peter F.Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
Peter and Michael

Will you object to replace section 4.2 with the one "Additional
Vocabulary in OWL 2 RDF Syntax" on the discussion page?



On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 12:14 PM, Peter F.Patel-Schneider
<pfps@research.bell-labs.com> wrote:
> 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
> document.
> I do not see that there is any information that you have provided that
> would overturn a specific decision of the working group.
> peter
> 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.

Jie Bao
Received on Wednesday, 20 May 2009 18:01:46 UTC

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