- From: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
- Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 17:32:47 +0100
- To: public-owl-comments@w3.org
- Message-ID: <498B14AF.4090606@inf.unibz.it>
Hello, I know that the official deadline for comments has expired, but I was only just made aware of this issue. >From the entailment checker section in the conformance document [1] it seems that OWL 2 RL does not have the standard OWL 2 direct semantics, but only the RDF-based semantics. I do not understand why this is the case, as OWL 2 RL is a syntactic subset of OWL 2. One of the problems is that an OWL 2 RL entailment checker can, according to the current definition, only take RDF documents as input; not OWL ontology documents. A more serious problem is that the RDF-based semantics is generally quite hard to understand, and the relationship with the direct semantics is not obvious. It will thus be very hard to implement OWL 2 RL for anyone who has a rule reasoner that does not work on the RDF level. I strongly suggest to reconsider the semantics of OWL 2 RL, and give it the same semantics as OWL 2 DL. Best, Jos [1] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Conformance_and_Test_Cases#Entailment_Checker -- Jos de Bruijn debruijn@inf.unibz.it +390471016224 http://www.debruijn.net/ ---------------------------------------------- No one who cannot rejoice in the discovery of his own mistakes deserves to be called a scholar. - Donald Foster
Received on Thursday, 5 February 2009 16:32:56 UTC