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: Sun, 7 Mar 2010 15:47:40 +0000
Cc: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
Message-Id: <09A08E54-D69A-4E91-B723-3193331FBAB0@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
To: public-rif-comments@w3.org
Michael Schneider noticed several small editorial issues that should also be fixed if possible:

 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.

Regards,
Ian Horrocks
On behalf of the OWL Working Group


On 5 Mar 2010, at 14:51, Ian Horrocks wrote:

> 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 Sunday, 7 March 2010 15:48:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 7 March 2010 15:48:09 GMT