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

RE: the relationships between OWL species (was Re: OWL, XML-RDF and Imports)

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 11:14:20 +0100
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, <seanb@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>

> > An RDF/XML document is an OWL-Full document if it obeys some rules, for
> > example, to quote a quote in a recent mail from Dan C:
> >
> > "An OWL Full document is an RDF/XML document [RDF/XML Syntax], for which
> > the corresponding RDF graph [RDF Concepts] does not use any URI
> references
> > starting with the prefix http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl# except
> those found
> > in the [RDF Schema for OWL]."
> >  -- http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/snapshot#docConformance
> Hmm.  This appears to make it be the case that
> 1/ not all RDF graphs are OWL Full documents and
> 2/ not all OWL Full documents are OWL DL documents.
> I believe that the working group has resolved that neither of these should
> be the case.

I agree that 1/ does not follow an explicit WG resolution - you seem to be
asserting that it contradicts a WG resolution and you prefer permitting e.g.
owl:foo in an OWL Full document.

I don't much like that but could survive - is there a WG resolution you had
in mind that I had gone against. Otherwise I would like to see some
discussion on this before switching.

I don't understand 2/.  I believe that it has been the clear intent that OWL
Full permits things that OWL DL does not (e.g. classes as instances). What
is your suggestion?

Received on Monday, 17 February 2003 05:14:47 UTC

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