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

Re: the owl.owl file

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 10:44:41 -0400
Cc: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Message-Id: <51C8EC22-3203-47D5-8B42-352D75B5EE83@cs.man.ac.uk>
To: "Michael Schneider" <schneid@fzi.de>
On 16 Oct 2009, at 05:15, Michael Schneider wrote:

> Hi!
>
> This just came to mind: There has recently been discussion [1] about
> owl.owl. If I correctly understand the original poster, he was  
> wondering why
> this ontology isn't represented in the OWL 2 documents.

Actually, his initial question was whether it was going to live at a  
specific URI (specifically, an OWL 2 namespace).

His looking in the documents was a second recourse.

> You may remember
> that owl.owl /was/ represented in OWL 1 as an (non-normative)  
> appendix in
> the OWL Reference [2].
>
> Anyway, the essential content (excluding annotations) of the new  
> owl.owl
> file happens to be represented (or "backed") in our document suite  
> as well,
> although in a very non-obvious way by means of two tables on  
> "axiomatic
> triples" in the RDF-Based Semantics [3a,3b] (btw, that's again a
> non-normative appendix). This alignment was what I was working on  
> and which
> took me most of the time when I re-designed owl.owl at that time. But
> without having a note on this alignment somewhere it will, at best,  
> look
> like an accidental coincidence, if anyone will notice it at all.
>
> So I wonder whether we should make this connection explicit by  
> adding text
> like the following to the comment in the ontology header of owl.owl:
>
> 	The content of this ontology corresponds to Tables 6.1 and 6.2
>      in Section 6.4 of the OWL 2 RDF-Based Semantics specification
> 	at http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-rdf-based-semantics/.
> 	Note that those tables do not include the different annotations
> 	(labels, comments and rdfs:isDefinedBy links) used in this file.
>
> Any comments (beyond the above :))?

Seems fine to me. You might put a comment triple in owl.owl seeAlsoing  
these sections.

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Friday, 16 October 2009 14:45:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 16 October 2009 14:45:15 GMT