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

AS & S Review: overview

From: <herman.ter.horst@philips.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 15:30:55 +0100
To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF1095229C.1775647F-ONC1256CB7.004A1D36-C1256CB7.004FE92B@diamond.philips.com>
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
- 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.

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.

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

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
- 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 definition of the semantics of the cardinality restrictions
needs to be completed.

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
- the proof should be made up to date with changes to definitions
- 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

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.
This appendix mainly serves to note the open issue of the 
correspondence between OWL DL and OWL Full.

Herman ter Horst
Philips Research
Received on Thursday, 23 January 2003 09:32:56 UTC

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