W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > June 2008

Re: [RDF/OWL] status RDF/OWL document

From: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 14:54:58 +0200
Message-ID: <48453F22.1050706@inf.unibz.it>
To: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

I just realized that, in the appendix, I had forgotten to axiomatize to 
connection between typing/subclassing in RDF and typing/subclassing in 
RIF.  I added the axiomatization to section 7.1.3.

Best, Jos

Jos de Bruijn wrote:
> Dear all,
> I updated the RDF and OWL compatibility document [1] according to our 
> discussion at the face-to-face, the reviewer comments, and a few small 
> things I found.  I did not yet finished the proofs of the theorems.
> But, in any case, people (particularly Christian) can review the current 
> version.
> You may notice that I included a couple of new editor's notes.  These 
> notes mark dependencies with the DLP and DTB documents, wherever I 
> anticipated a possible change in those documents before the RDF/OWL 
> document will go to last call. Before publication, these notes will have 
> to be revisited to make sure the dependencies are not broken.
> This is a rough list of the changes compared with the version discussed 
> in the face-to-face:
> 1 the reference to SWRL was added to the introduction
> 2 reference to the shortcut syntax in the introduction
> 3 a new section 2, which describes the difference between RIF and RDF 
> symbols, was added
> 4 OWL DL compatibility: the first example in section 4 was removed 
> because it was nonsensical; the RIF rule set was inconsistent
> 5 the table of RIF-RDF symbol correspondence was moved from the 
> introduction of RDF compatibility to the new section 2
> 6 the description of the organization of the documents near the end of 
> the overview was improved
> 7 a note in section 4.1.1 about DL-safeness being "at-risk" was added
> 8 for the reference to OWL 2 I used the text suggested by the OWL 
> working group
> 9 the embedding of D-entailment was removed
> 10 the notation for RIF rule sets in examples and definitions was 
> corrected (there were several errors in quantifications with commas and 
> parentheses)
> 11 DEFINITION => Definition (to make more coherent with BLD and FLD 
> documents)
> 12 the section on required built-ins in the appendix was removed and the 
> embeddings have been updated to use the built-ins defined in the DTD 
> document
> 13 a formal definition of OWL DLP has been added in section 7.2.1
> 14 the concept of "considered datatypes" is now used, with a reference 
> to the conformance clause section in BLD, in the definition of 
> conforming datatype maps (section 3.1.2) as well as the embeddings of 
> RDFS and OWL DL entailment (sections 7.1.5 and
> Best, Jos
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/SWC

Jos de Bruijn            debruijn@inf.unibz.it
+390471016224         http://www.debruijn.net/
An expert is a person who has made all the
mistakes that can be made in a very narrow
   - Niels Bohr
Received on Tuesday, 3 June 2008 12:54:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:47:51 UTC