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

Re: Status of OWL 2 RDF-Based Semantics

From: Peter F.Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 19:32:04 -0400
Message-ID: <20090520.193204.07070374.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
CC: <ivan@w3.org>, <alan.wu@oracle.com>, <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
From: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
Subject: RE: Status of OWL 2 RDF-Based Semantics
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 18:12:56 -0500

[...]

> Earlier this day, I have finished this work. Lots of editorial cleanup, 
> clarification and cosmetics, where I was unhappy with the formulation.
> This was all minor, but there were also a handful of more interesting 
> bits (though also no big things), which are all mentioned in the 
> "Post-LC Changlog" at:
> 
>  
> <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/RDF-Based_Semantics#Appendix:_Post_Last-Cal
> l_Changes_.28Informative.29>
> 
> In particular, maybe someone can have a look at the 
> "optional owl:onProperties" (n-ary datatypes) stuff. 
> There are several places in the document where this is 
> mentioned now, here is one:
> 
> <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/RDF-Based_Semantics#Semantic_Conditions_for
> _Property_Restrictions>
> [[
> Implementations are not required to support the semantic conditions 
> for owl:onProperties, but MAY support them in order to realize 
> n-ary dataranges with arities = 2 
> (see Section 7 of [OWL 2 Specification] for further information).
> ]]
> 
> I think this is fine, and in accordance with the rest of the OWL 2 spec, 
> but maybe someone has a different opinion?

Me.

I could see leaving the conditions out, as there is no analogue to them
in the direct semantics, but it seems to me that the recent post-review
changes here are not ideal.

However, I'm not going to rescind my vote to proceed just on this
disagreement.

> One last thing before CR publication will be that I will contact 
> Ivan to update the figure in Section 1 a bit (cosmetics only) and 
> I will put some describing text below it (I have been asked to do 
> this by several people privately).
> 
> And, of course, spell checking, and the like.
> 
> Apart from this, before Proposed Recommendation, I will still have 
> to go on working on the proof sketch for the correspondence theorem, 
> which isn't quite finished yet (see Ednote in LCWD). However, note 
> that the proof is purely informative, and there are no dependencies 
> on it apart from the theorem (also informative) itself, so this 
> cannot lead to any problem, I believe.
> 
> Best,
> Michael

peter
Received on Wednesday, 20 May 2009 23:33:48 UTC

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