W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > March 2010

Re: RIF RDF and OWL Compatibility and OWL Semantics

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 08:53:35 +0100
Cc: OWL 2 <public-owl-wg@w3.org>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Message-Id: <A6FE3CA5-BA00-41F9-AA7C-B6038EB86C6B@w3.org>
To: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Hi Ian,

I have gone through the document on the Wiki page and, as far as I could see, it looks o.k. Well, except for one, albeit important thing: all the OWL 2 references in the references' section still refer to the Candidate Recommendation! (I found OWL2 RDF, OWL2 Semantics, OWL 2 Syntax, and OWL 2 Profile references). Knowing Sandro:-) these references might be generated via some wiki-sandro-magic, that is why I cc-d him explicitly...

Thanks

Ivan




On Mar 4, 2010, at 18:29 , Ian Horrocks wrote:

> Dear OWL WG,
> 
> Sorry to disturb your well earned repose, but we really should respond to RIF's response to our comment about their use of OWL Full Semantics' and 'OWL DL Semantics'. Everything now seems OK to me and, unless I hear to the contrary, I will respond confirming that we are satisfied.
> 
> Regards,
> Ian
> 
> 
> 
> On 10 Dec 2009, at 10:29, Jos de Bruijn wrote:
> 
>> Dear Ian,
>> 
>> Thank you for bringing this naming issue to our attention.
>> We have updated the naming in the wiki version of the document [1]
>> accordingly.
>> 
>> We have also updated the URIs of the import profiles in section 5.1.1 to
>> those defined by the semantic web coordination group.
>> 
>> 
>> Best, Jos
>> 
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/SWC
>> [2] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/SWC#Conformance_Clauses
>> 
>> Ian Horrocks wrote:
>>> Dear RIF WG,
>>> 
>>> The current SWC document uses the terms 'OWL Full Semantics' and 'OWL DL
>>> Semantics'. However, the OWL Working Group, in the recently published
>>> OWL 2 Recommendation, has tried to clarify these notions by separating
>>> syntax and semantics. In OWL 2, it is made clear that OWL 2 DL is a
>>> syntactic restriction and not, per se, a definition of a particular
>>> semantics. For semantics, we refer to the 'OWL 2 Direct Semantics' and
>>> 'OWL 2 RDF-Based Semantics', either of which could be applied to an OWL
>>> 2 DL ontology.
>>> 
>>> We realise that this may come a bit too late in the process (and the OWL
>>> WG also acknowledges the issue of accepted terminology, see the thread
>>> at[1]). However, we wonder whether the RIF WG would still consider
>>> updating the RDF and OWL Compatibility document to reflect the
>>> terminology used in OWL 2 -- we believe that there would be a benefit to
>>> RIF in terms of increased clarity and consistency with the latest
>>> version of OWL.
>>> 
>>> Note that the current discussion on the Semantic Web Coordination
>>> Group[2] that will provide generic URI-s for entailment regimes (and
>>> which may be an alternative to the URI-s listed in 5.1.1. of the
>>> document) will probably reflect the updated terminology.
>>> 
>>> Sincerely
>>> 
>>> On behalf of the OWL Working Group
>>> 
>>> Ian Horrocks, Chair
>>> 
>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-overview/
>>> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-semweb-cg/2009Oct/0051.html
>>> 
>>> 
> 
> 


----
Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf







Received on Friday, 5 March 2010 07:53:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 5 March 2010 07:53:27 GMT