W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webont-comments@w3.org > June 2003

[closed] Re: OWL Reference comment - RDF Schema for OWL

From: Guus Schreiber <schreiber@swi.psy.uva.nl>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 13:19:03 +0200
Message-ID: <3F001CA7.4050604@swi.psy.uva.nl>
To: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
CC: public-webont-comments@w3.org

> On Thu, 19 Jun 2003 23:43:07 +0100
> Guus Schreiber <schreiber@cs.vu.nl> wrote:
>> From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
>> Subject: Re: OWL Reference comment - RDF Schema for OWL
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webont-comments/2003May/0082.html
>>   > On Mon, 12 May 2003 14:19:59 +0200
>>   > Guus Schreiber <schreiber@cs.vu.nl> wrote:
> <snip/>
>> Dave,
>> The role of the RDF Schema is to give ontology builders and tool
>> developers structured information about the OWL vocabulary.
>> In Sec. 1.7 the role of Appendix B is explained as follows:
>> [[
>> Appendix B contains an RDF schema for the OWL language
>> constructs. This schema provides information about the OWL vocabulary
>> in a form that can be understood by RDF Schema
>> processors. Conventionally, classes have a leading uppercase
>> character; properties a leading lowercase character. Thus,
>> owl:Ontology is a class, and owl:imports is a property. Appendix C
>> gives a tabular overview of all OWL language constructs in terms of
>> the built-in OWL classes and properties (the latter with their domain
>> and range).
>> NOTE: The RDF Schema file for OWL is not expected to be imported
>> explicitly (i.e., with owl:imports) into an ontology. The schema has
>> an informative status and is meant to provide the classes and
>> properties to be used in the RDF/XML syntax. . People that do
>> import this schema should expect the resulting ontology to be an OWL
>> Full ontology.
>> ]]
>> We suggest the second sentence could have been phrased more clearly as
>> follows:
>> [[
>> This schema provides information about the OWL vocabulary that could
>> be a useful reference point for ontology builders and tool
>> developers. The restrictions provided by the schema on the OWL classes
>> and properties are informative and not complete.  Also, this schema
>> does not make distinctions between OWL Full, OWL DL and OWL Lite.
>> ]]
>> [The last sentence was moved forward from the NOTE..]
> Can you please link to 1.7 from appendix B.  If you go to the appendix,
> there is no path back to that much earlier declaration. Web documents
> aren't always read serially!   I didn't see that paragraph.  Words about
> the purpose of this section would better live in the section itself.

We included this link in the new editor's draft.

> <snip/>
>> The editor's draft [1] contains the suggested changes.
>> Thanks again for the comment. Please let us know, cc-ing 
>> public-webont-comments@w3.org, whether this response is satisfactory.
>> Guus
>> [1] http://www.daml.org/2002/06/webont/owl-ref-proposed
> Some suggestions
> In AppB, "The RDF/XML ..." would read better.
> It would be nice to know if it is intended to be put behind the
> URI &owl; eventually ends at http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl
> (or whatever).  That is likely to be the most useful way to
> use this document, than appended in a WD, and that
> it isn't intended to be owl:imported.

The intro of the appendix now reads:

See Sec. 1.7 for a description of the purpose of this appendix. The 
RDF/XML version of this appendix can be found at 

   @@ reference to be replaced in final version by

> However, overall: this response is satisfactory.

I have  closed this thread for issue-tracking purposes, but please feel 
free to suggest additional editorial changes.

Thanks for your helpful comment.

> Dave
Received on Monday, 30 June 2003 07:19:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:09:29 UTC