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: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 22:00:42 +0100
Cc: public-rif-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <46F93A2C-09DA-49CB-A680-5F055A8FFB96@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
To: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
Dear Jos,

Thank you for your response. I can confirm that we are fully satisfied -- thank you!

Regards,
Ian Horrocks
On behalf of the OWL Working Group



On 10 Mar 2010, at 14:17, Jos de Bruijn wrote:

> 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, 24 March 2010 21:01:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 24 March 2010 21:01:14 GMT