W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-comments@w3.org > March 2010

Re: RIF RDF and OWL Compatibility and OWL Semantics

From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 14:51:08 +0000
Cc: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
Message-Id: <8A51E16C-4ED6-466E-B3AA-60FED95D6705@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
To: public-rif-comments@w3.org
We noticed one minor discrepancy: the SWC document [1] still cites the CR versions of the OWL 2 documents. Presuming that this will be fixed in the published version of [1], we are fully satisfied with the way in which you have addressed our concerns -- thank you!

Regards,
Ian Horrocks
On behalf of the OWL Working Group




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
>> 
>> 
Received on Friday, 5 March 2010 14:51:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 5 March 2010 14:51:37 GMT