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

Re: RIF RDF and OWL Compatibility and OWL Semantics

From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2010 15:45:05 +0000
Cc: "OWL 2" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <8E911200-82A7-4949-A722-B5E2558475B3@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
To: "Michael Schneider" <schneid@fzi.de>
Thanks! I will pass this on.

Regards,
Ian


On 7 Mar 2010, at 15:31, Michael Schneider wrote:

> Hi!
> 
> I had a look at chapters 4 ("OWL Compatibility") and 6 ("Conformance
> Clauses"). My overall impression was fine, but I found that there are still
> a few issues that should probably be reported.
> 
>  1) Chapter 4: In the whole chapter, the terms "direct semantics",
> "RDF-Based semantics", "structural specification", and "RDF semantics" are
> repeatedly written in lower case (as written in this sentence). In the OWL 2
> documents, however, these terms are generally in upper case, as in "Direct
> Semantics"; see for example the OWL 2 Overview
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-overview/>. I believe the RIF document should
> follow this practice.
> 
>  2) Chapter 4, 4th paragraph, first sentence: This sentence talks about the
> RDF mapping, but misses a citation to our "Mapping to RDF" document.
> 
>  3) Section 4.2: The titles of the subsections are given as "OWL RDF-Based
> Semantics" and "OWL Direct Semantics", i.e., the "2" of "OWL 2" is missing
> in both cases. I don't know whether this was intended or just typos. We
> should mention it in the report at least.
> 
>  4) Section 4.2.1, first sentence: The sentence refers to the "OWL 2 Full
> vocabulary". Howerver, in the RDF-Based Semantics spec (Sec. 3.2) it is
> called the "OWL 2 RDF-Based Vocabulary". Btw, this term is also upper-cased
> in the OWL 2 document, while "vocabulary" is written lower-case in the RIF
> document.
> 
> Michael
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org]
>> On Behalf Of Ian Horrocks
>> Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 6:29 PM
>> To: OWL 2
>> Subject: Re: RIF RDF and OWL Compatibility and OWL Semantics
>> 
>> 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
>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
> 
> --
> Dipl.-Inform. Michael Schneider
> Research Scientist, Information Process Engineering (IPE)
> Tel  : +49-721-9654-726
> Fax  : +49-721-9654-727
> Email: michael.schneider@fzi.de
> WWW  : http://www.fzi.de/michael.schneider
> =======================================================================
> FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik an der Universität Karlsruhe
> Haid-und-Neu-Str. 10-14, D-76131 Karlsruhe
> Tel.: +49-721-9654-0, Fax: +49-721-9654-959
> Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts, Az 14-0563.1, RP Karlsruhe
> Vorstand: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Rüdiger Dillmann, Dipl. Wi.-Ing. Michael Flor,
> Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Wolffried Stucky, Prof. Dr. Rudi Studer
> Vorsitzender des Kuratoriums: Ministerialdirigent Günther Leßnerkraus
> =======================================================================
> 
Received on Sunday, 7 March 2010 15:45:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 7 March 2010 15:45:35 GMT