W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > December 2002

Background for reviews

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 18:12:50 +0100
To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <200212311812.50277.jjc@hpl.hp.com>



Given limited time (according to my holiday calendar no time)
I have tried to restrict my review to the relationship between the mapping 
rules and the other parts of our documents, particularly concerning the 
following issues:

http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#I5.2-Language-Compliance-Levels

http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#I5.3-Semantic-Layering

http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#I5.6-daml%3Aimports-as-magic-syntax

http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#I5.14-Ontology-versioning

using RDF/XML for instance data,

use of bnodes (see 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Dec/0117.html
)

annotations



My concern is that the totality of our specs define OWL DL as the image under 
the mapping rules of the abstract syntax, and OWL Lite as the image under the 
mapping rules of a subset of the abstract syntax. However in many cases our 
documents are misleading or just plain wrong in suggesting that the defn of 
OWL Lite is somewhat simpler, or neglecting to point out that examples are 
missing required portions to be in OWL Lite or OWL DL etc.

The mapping rules I have used are found at:

http://www-db.research.bell-labs.com/user/pfps/owl/semantics/mapping.html#4

and are part of a document dated 30th December (although you can't tell).

Jeremy
Received on Tuesday, 31 December 2002 12:14:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:56 GMT