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

Re: RIF RDF and OWL Compatibility and OWL Semantics

From: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 14:17:42 +0100
Message-ID: <4B979BF6.9010903@inf.unibz.it>
To: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
CC: public-rif-comments@w3.org
Dear Ian,

Thanks very much for the comments. I updated the references to the
latest version of the OWL 2 specification documents and implemented the
comments 1, 2, and 4 below.
Concerning the section titles: the omission of the "2" in the section
titles is deliberate. In fact, when we speak about combinations (e.g.,
RIF-OWL DL combinations) we always omit the version of OWL, because the
definition of such combinations should in principle be independent of
the version of OWL that is used. We want to make it clear that to use
RIF in combination with OWL, the user may use either version of OWL [OK,
this doesn't hold for OWL Full, but OWL 1 Full is not usable anyway,
since it is internally inconsistent].

Cheers, Jos

On 2010-03-07 16:47, Ian Horrocks wrote:
> 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

Jos de Bruijn
  Web:   http://www.debruijn.net/
  Phone: +39 0471 016224
  Fax:   +39 0471 016009
Received on Wednesday, 10 March 2010 13:17:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:49:20 UTC