W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > November 2009

Re: [RIF-OWL] Naming OWL semantic notions [was: Re: ISSUE: OWL-DL compatibility]

From: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 11:27:46 +0100
Message-ID: <4B03CC22.6060400@inf.unibz.it>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
CC: Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com>, RIF WG Public list <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Excellent, thanks!
I updated the table in section 5.1.1 accordingly.


Best, Jos

Ivan Herman wrote:
> Jos et al,
> 
> sorry to chime in, only on small item. After some discussion in the SW
> Coordination Group, the set of URI-s for entailment regimes has been set
> up at:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/ns/entailment/
> 
> see that file for the respective URI-s. I guess these can now be used
> for the table in section 5.1.1. These URI-s have been set up on request
> of Axel in order to use the same URI-s in RIF and, for example, in the
> new version of SPARQL.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Ivan
> 
> Jos de Bruijn wrote:
>> It was not a simple search and replace because we now have to
>> differentiate between terminology we use in the syntactic and
>> terminology we use in the semantic world.
>> The ontologies (and thus also combinations) we are concerned with are
>> OWL 2 DL and OWL 2 Full. The notions of satisfiability, model, and
>> entailment are OWL 2 Direct and OWL 2 RDF-Based.
>>
>> Updating the introduction and sections 4 and 9 was straightforward,
>> except that one might dispute the names of the subsections 4.2.1 and
>> 4.2.2 [they were "OWL Full" and "OWL DL"; I renamed them to "OWL
>> RDF-based semantics" and "OWL direct semantics", respectively]
>>
>> In section 5 (input profiles) we have the URIs of the profiles, which I
>> changed to reflect the semantics of the imports of OWL ontologies.
>> However, the URIs are still to be finalized.
>>
>> In section 6 (conformance) I currently speak about conformant
>> Core/BLD-OWL Direct and RDF-Based consumers and producers.  However, I
>> guess one might argue that consumed/produced are RDF-OWL DL/Full
>> combinations, and thus one should speak about conformant Core/BLD-OWL
>> DL/Full consumers and producers.
>> Opinions?
>>
>>
>> Best, Jos
>>
>>
>>> On a different but related note, Ian Horrocks posted a public comment
>>> that the new terminology for that-formerly-known-as-OWL-DL is "OWL
>>> Direct Semantics", and for that-formerly-known-as-OWL-Full is "OWL
>>> RDF-based Semantics" (see
>>> [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-comments/2009Nov/0001.html])
>>>
>>>
>>> I think a quick fix would be to replace "OWL Full" with "OWL RDF-based
>>> Semantics" and replace "OWL-DL" with "OWL Direct Semantics".  This isn't
>>> precisely correct in general, but I think based on the way we use the
>>> difference (between OWL Full and OWL DL), it works.
>>>
>>> This doesn't change anything fundamental so its clearly just a bug fix,
>>> if you are willing to make the change.  Are you?
>>>
>>> -Chris
>>>
> 

-- 
                         debruijn@inf.unibz.it
Jos de Bruijn,        http://www.debruijn.net/
Received on Wednesday, 18 November 2009 10:28:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 18 November 2009 10:28:23 GMT