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

Re: the owl.owl file

From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 17:26:44 +0100
Cc: "Michael Schneider" <schneid@fzi.de>, W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Message-Id: <3730ED55-7BC4-4C18-8D61-4DA28FFF8EB4@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Fine for me too -- just in case my opinion counts :-)

Ian

On 16 Oct 2009, at 15:44, Bijan Parsia wrote:

> 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 16:27:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 16 October 2009 16:27:16 GMT