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

Re: OWL Lite/OWL DL/OWL Full defn in AS&S

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 04:18:29 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20030116.041829.16486242.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Subject: OWL Lite/OWL DL/OWL Full defn in AS&S
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 17:53:21 +0000

> I am just trying to write the document conformance clauses in Test Cases.
> I was hoping to do something like:
> [[
> An OWL Full document is an RDF/XML document [hyperlink1]
> that conforms to the specification of OWL Full [hyperlink2] in AS&S.

As far as I know, all RDF/XML documents are OWL Full documents, so there is
no such specification in AS&S.

> An OWL DL document is an OWL Full document that also
> conforms to the specification of OWL DL [hyperlink3] in AS&S.
> An OWL Lite document is an OWL DL document that also
> conforms to the specification of OWL Lite [hyperlink4] in AS&S.

These two now exist

However, you probably need to say something like

An OWL DL document is an RDF/XML document [hyperlink1] such that 
the <a href="http://.../rdfs.html#RDF_graph_imports_closure">imports closure</a>
[<cite><a href="ref-owlmt">OWL Semantics</a></cite>]
of the 
<a href="[doesn't yet exist]">RDF graph</a>
[<cite><a href="ref-rdfconcepts">RDF Concepts</a></cite>]
resulting from the RDF parsing 
[<cite><a href="semantics.html#ref-rdfsyntax">RDF Syntax</a></cite>],
of the document 
is an 
<a href="http://.../mapping.html#OWL_DL_RDF_graphs">OWL DL ontology in RDF
graph form</a>.

> ]]
> I have not found the anchors in the Jan 14th copy of AS&S.
> I also note that there is more editorial tidying up, some specific points are:
> - OWL/DL => OWL DL (or is OWL/DL right?)
> - OWL/Lite => OWL Lite (ditto.)

Yeah, yeah.  I finally made this change.

> Quite a few times AS&S defers to reference, which I don't think it should 
> be doing now that reference is informative.

I only found the following:

The normative exchange syntax for OWL is 
RDF/XML [<cite><a href="#ref-rdfsyntax">RDF Syntax</a></cite>];
the OWL Reference document
[<cite><a href="#ref-ref">OWL Reference</a></cite>]
shows how the RDF syntax is used in OWL.

There are also a number of minor differences between OWL and DAML+OIL,
including a number of changes to the names of the various constructs, as
mentioned in Appendix A of the
OWL Reference Description
[<cite><a href="#ref-ref">OWL Reference</a></cite>].

The exchange syntax 
for OWL is RDF/XML
[<cite><a href="semantics.html#ref-rdfsyntax">RDF Syntax</a></cite>],
as specified in the OWL Reference Description 
[<cite><a href="semantics.html#ref-ref">OWL Reference</a></cite>].

Perhaps the third one should be changed.  However, where then would the
normative claim that the RDF exchange syntax is RDF/XML and that the only
meaningful parts of that syntax is RDF Graphs be placed?

> Jeremy

Received on Thursday, 16 January 2003 04:20:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:50 UTC