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

Re: RIF RDF and OWL Compatibility and OWL Semantics

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 08:03:58 -0500
Cc: OWL 2 <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <7FAD2F94-BEFA-45E7-B344-153545340A4A@cs.rpi.edu>
To: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
+1 (modulo fixing what Ivan brought up)

On Mar 4, 2010, at 12:29 PM, 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
>>>
>>>
>
>

We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things,  
not because they are easy, but because they are hard - John F.  
Kennedy, Sept 12, 1962

Prof James Hendler								http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~hendler
Tetherless World Constellation Chair & Asst Dean of IT and Web Science
Computer and Cognitive Science Depts				Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hendler
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY 12180     	@jahendler, twitter
Received on Friday, 5 March 2010 13:04:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 5 March 2010 13:04:37 GMT