W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > October to December 2003

Re: RDF Semantics: two issues, connected to OWL

From: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 18:07:16 -0600
Message-Id: <p06001f08bc0005abd5e1@[10.1.31.1]>
To: herman.ter.horst@philips.com
Cc: connolly@w3.org, sandro@w3.org, www-rdf-comments@w3.org

>[...]
>
>>>
>>>Issue 1- It seems that two changes made to RDF Semantics
>>>during LC2 have not yet been incorporated completely
>>>in the definition of D-interpretations.
>>
>>As already remarked in earlier messages: that I regard as a typo, and
>>plan to get it changed before final publication , if the process will
>>allow it.
>
>Without going into the meaning of the word typo, I would only like
>to note for clarity that I added two changes in my previous message,
>to the change about which you remarked in [5] that you regard it as a
>typo.

If I regard it as a typo, then I can consider the change to be editorial :-)

I have made those changes to the final version of the document, as 
well as inserting the required 'extra' rule (christened rule gl and 
defined immediately after rule lg in the document, with a short 
explanation) and other small modifications as required in the rdfs 
entailment lemma proof.

The document is now  set in stone and cannot be further altered. Any 
remaining bugs will have to be handled in post-publication error 
reports, and included in a later modification/update.

<snip>
>  >
>>>The problem I refer to in issue 2 is that the OWL design
>>>includes the possibility to do without the semantic conditions
>>>of XMLLiteral.
>>>This aspect of the OWL semantics design is not reflected in S&AS,
>>>and came to my attention only a few days ago [3] [4].
>>
>>I am somewhat confused by this. You seem to be saying that the OWL
>>documentation agrees with the RDF documentation, but that both of
>>them are at odds with an undocumented (?) "OWL design". To my mind
>>there is no problem here. The actual OWL design is that which is
>>described in the documents. If someone misunderstands these documents
>>then the appropriate course of action is for them to improve their
>>understanding.
>
>I continue the discussion of issue 2 in the webont mailing list.
>Here I only make the following remark, which I hope dissolves
>your confusion:
>The only way in which this "OWL design" surfaces in the documents
>is in the test document: there are OWL tests that do not require
>the support of XMLLiteral.  S&AS, being a semantic extension
>of RDFS, does require the support of XMLLiteral.

I am not sure what you mean by 'require the support'; but if there 
are any OWL test cases in the OWL documentation that require 
correction, then my own view would be that Webont should correct 
them. As I said previously, the status of rdf:XMLLiteral in RDF has 
been thoroughly documented now for some considerable time, and indeed 
was influenced partly by detailed comments from members of the Webont 
group.

The time has now long passed when it would be appropriate to suggest 
a major re-design of RDF on any grounds arising from OWL 
compatibility, particularly when apparently this arises from an 
internal inconsistency between the OWL test cases and the OWL AS&S.

Pat
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC	(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.	(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32501			(850)291 0667    cell
phayes@ihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Friday, 12 December 2003 19:07:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:33 GMT