W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > February 2003

Re: AS & S Review: overview

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 13:54:43 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20030208.135443.125116075.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: herman.ter.horst@philips.com
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org

From: herman.ter.horst@philips.com
Subject: AS & S Review: overview
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 15:30:55 +0100

> Here is a brief overview of the status of the review of 
> the Abstract Syntax and Semantics document that I and others
> did since the Manchester face-to-face meeting:

> Abstract, Introduction, Abstract Syntax:
> hth> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jan/0204.html
> pfps> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jan/0289.html
> Remaining points: 
> - the abstract does not yet contain OWL Full
OWL Full is now mentioned.
> - the distinction between normative and informative could be
>   made more clear in the main parts of the document
> Peter is not aware that this is needed, I leave this to the chairs 
> to comment.
I believe that each informative part is prominently so labelled.

> Direct model theoretic semantics:
> hth> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jan/0205.html
> pfps> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jan/0290.html
> Very small remaining point:
> implies instead of the symbol -> should also be done consistently 
> in the remainder of the document.
I can no longer find any uses of -> in the document.

> Mapping to RDF graphs:
> hth> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jan/0206.html
> No reaction by Peter
> Main point (see URL):
> - more explanation before mapping table needed
> OWL DL as RDF graphs:
> hth> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jan/0227.html
> No reaction by Peter
> Main points (see URL):
> - reorder/rewrite material so that it becomes intelligible
> - include OWL Lite
> Jeremy also reviewed this part, agrees with these points,
> jjc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jan/0332.html
> and has a proposal for an alternative:
> jjc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jan/0356.html
I believe that Jeremy  is going to propose new versions of these parts of
the document.

> RDFS-compatible OWL semantics:
> hth> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jan/0288.html
> pfps> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jan/0291.html
> hth> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jan/0315.html
> pfps> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jan/0393.html
> jjc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jan/0415.html
> hth> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jan/0420.html
> Remaining points, mainly:
> - RDF Core needs to change definition of D-interpretation
> - I read definition of IC/ICEXT in RDF Semantics differently
> from Peter and Jeremy
We do.
> - Small, additional assumptions need to be added to definition of OWL
> interpretation because of the addition of the set IP to the definition
> of RDF interpretations, and, in my view, also because
> of the IC/ICEXT point
The denotations of all OWL syntactic properties have been added to IP.
> - The definition of the semantics of the cardinality restrictions
> needs to be completed.
I claim that they are complete as they stand.

> Appendix A.1: Correspondence between Abstract OWL and OWL DL
> hth> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jan/0424.html
> Main points:
> - more details needed for readability
I entertain offers to expand the proof.
> - the proof should be made up to date with changes to definitions
I believe that it is now up to date.
> - the proof does not incorporate annotations and imports
> - nobody except Peter confirmed the correctness of the proof, or 
>   did Ian confirm this, implicitly?:
> ian> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jan/0401.html
I believe that both Ian and Jeff Pan have signed off on the proof.

> Appendix A.2: Correspondence between OWL DL and OWL Full
> This has been discussed before.  There is a "proof sketch",
> but that is not a proof.  Even if somebody says that something
> is almost a proof, it is still not a proof.
Agreed.  I entertain offers to expand this proof sketch to a full proof.
> This appendix mainly serves to note the open issue of the 
> correspondence between OWL DL and OWL Full.
Well, it certainly does mention that the other direction does not even have
a proof sketch.

> Herman ter Horst
> Philips Research

Received on Saturday, 8 February 2003 13:54:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:51 UTC