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

rif-rdf-owl: OWL WG review

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 12:18:07 +0100
Message-ID: <482C1BEF.605@hpl.hp.com>
To: public-rif-comments@w3.org
CC: "Web Ontology Language ((OWL)) Working Group WG" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>


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.
]]

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.

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.

---


The particularly wording in this e-mail is intended for formal approval 
by the OWL WG at its next telecon, 21st May. The points, but not the 
wording, were agreed at the 7th May telecon. We will follow up, if any 
corrections to the wording are made on the 21st.


Jeremy Carroll, hopefully on behalf of OWL WG
Received on Thursday, 15 May 2008 11:19:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 15 May 2008 11:19:40 GMT