W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-comments@w3.org > June 2008

Re: rif-rdf-owl: OWL WG review

From: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 14:29:17 +0200
Message-ID: <4843E79D.6010106@inf.unibz.it>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
CC: public-rif-comments@w3.org

Dear Jeremy, OWL working group,

This a response to your review of the RIF RDF and OWL compatibility
document [1].

> This is a review of
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-rif-rdf-owl-20080415/
> on behalf of the OWL WG.
> We have one change request, and two further comments.

> A)
> Please change the sentence just before section 3.1

> [[
> This paves the way towards combination with OWL 2, which is envisioned
> to allow punning in all its syntaxes.
> ]]

> and the sentence from 3.2.2.3

> [[
> It is currently expected that OWL 2 will not define a semantics for
> annotation and ontology properties; therefore, the below definition
> cannot be extended to the case of OWL 2.
> ]]

> with a less definitive statement such as:

> [[
> In this document, we are using OWL to refer to OWL1. While OWL2 is still
> in development it is unclear how RIF will interoperate with it. At the
> time of writing, we believe that with OWL2 the support for punning may
> be beneficial, and that there might be particular problems in using
> section 3.2.2.3.
> ]]

The requested change will be implemented.

> B) On the editors note, at the end of section 1, we advise that RDF
> entailment is much less interesting than the others (simple, RDFS, D,
> OWL DL, OWL Full), and we would not expect opposition to RIF not
> supporting it.

Noted.

> C) Several participants in our group were unconvinced by the use of the
> "http://www.w3.org/2007/rif"^^rif:iri and "literal string@en"^^rif:text
> and found the deviation from the well-established notation for the RDF
> symbols a potential source of confusion to readers of this document,
> most of whom will also be readers of other Semantic Web documents from
> the W3C, and might expect a certain uniformity of style. Most of those
> present at our meeting were sympathetic to this point of view, but we
> felt it inappropriate to make a stronger comment on a sylistic matter.

It has been decided to use Turtle-style shortcut syntax for IRIs in the
document; this should address some of your concerns. In addition, we
will add an explanation (see [3]) about the correspondence between plain
literals with language tags in RDF and constants in the symbol space
rif:text in the document; there was not enough support in the working
group for adding specific shortcut syntax for strings with language tags.


Best, Jos, on behalf of the RIF working group

[1]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-comments/2008May/0004.html
[3]
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/SWC#Symbols_in_RIF_Versus_RDF.2FOWL_.28Informative.29 
Received on Monday, 2 June 2008 12:37:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 2 June 2008 12:37:28 GMT