Re: [LC Response] To Jonathan Rees Re: Editorial comments on RDF-based semantics

Received.  I am satisfied with the changes reflected in the current  
drafts (particularly http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Syntax last  
modified by Ian on 10 April).  I am not sure that the message below is  
entirely in agreement with them, but I don't think it needs to be, so  
I will ignore most of the message in favor of what the drafts actually  
say.

Jonathan

On Mar 25, 2009, at 2:34 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

> Dear Jonathan:
> Thank you for your message
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/0068.html 
> >
> on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts.
>
> Some of your comments in the message relate to specific editorial
> concerns with the RDF-Based Semantics document.  These comments are
> being addressed in another reply.  This response addresses only your
> comments about the use of "OWL 2", "OWL 2 DL", and "OWL 2 Full".
>
> The working group realizes that our documents did not do a good job of
> describing the terminology related to OWL 2.  To alleviate this  
> problem
> there is now a new document, the Document Overview
> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Document_Overview/.
>
> The structure of OWL 2 ontologies is defined in the OWL 2 Structural
> Specification and is not limited to ontologies that fit into a
> Description Logic framework, but you are right in pointing out that  
> this
> was not made sufficiently clear.  The document has been revised so  
> that
> these features are described in their most general form using examples
> in both structural and RDF graph forms. Restrictions required in OWL 2
> DL ontologies are listed in Section 3, and it is made clear that these
> only apply to OWL 2 DL ontologies.
>
> The direct semantics directly provides one meaning for the constructs
> in OWL 2 ontologies.  The RDF-based semantics directly provides a
> meaning for all RDF graphs.  As all OWL 2 ontologies can be mapped  
> into
> RDF graphs, the RDF-based semantics provides another semantics for all
> the constructs in OWL 2 ontologies.
>
> The phrase "OWL 2", by itself, is now uniformly used to refer to the
> entire language, regardless of the particular syntax or semantics.   
> The
> phrase "OWL 2 Full", by itself, is now uniformly used as a shorthand  
> to
> refer to the treatment of RDF graphs (particularly those RDF graphs  
> that
> use OWL 2 constructs) under the RDF-based semantics and thus, as you
> say, is a combination of both syntax and semantics.  This use of  
> "OWL 2
> Full" is consistent with the use of "OWL Full" in the WebOnt documents
> that define the original version of OWL.
>
> "OWL 2 DL ontologies" are then those OWL 2 ontologies that admit
> reasoning using well-known DL techniques when interpreted using the
> Direct Semantics, and that can be mapped to RDF graphs and back again
> without affecting their meaning in the direct semantics.  This use of
> "OWL 2 DL ontologies" is consistent with the use of "OWL DL" in the
> WebOnt documents that define the original version of OWL."  Section  
> 3 of
> the OWL 2 Structural Specification provides a comprehensive and  
> compact
> list of the extra conditions that are required for an OWL 2 ontology  
> to
> be an OWL 2 DL ontology.
>
> Several documents have had edits to conform to and better describe  
> this
> terminology.  In particular, the RDF-Based Semantics document, which  
> was
> not at last call, has been heavily edited.  The relevant edits have
> ended up being interspersed with other work, so no diffs are provided
> here.  The current working drafts of all the WG documents are linked  
> to
> from the WG home page.
>
> Please acknowledge receipt of this email to
> <mailto:public-owl-comments@w3.org> (replying to this email should
> suffice). In your acknowledgment please let us know whether or not you
> are satisfied with the working group's response to your comment.
>
> Regards,
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> on behalf of the W3C OWL Working Group

Received on Monday, 13 April 2009 13:18:45 UTC