- From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
- Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 20:18:05 -0500
- To: public-owl-comments@w3.org
- Message-Id: <BCEECF65-543F-46EF-98C9-C5AA782F344D@creativecommons.org>
The OWL 2 document suite has a large number of formats and top-level concepts, and I found myself getting lost, so I prepared a map for myself (PDF attached). My 'public comment' is: Please consider providing the community with a roadmap of this kind. The format is ersatz, inspired not by UML but by the notation of category theory (in case that means anything to whoever's reading this). One question this raised for me is whether a functional-style syntax document can be imported (or in webarch-ese: whether an OWL 2 processor MUST be able to process an ontology whose only representation is in functional-style syntax). Similarly for OWL/XML. These questions are the two links labeled "is a ??". I didn't find an answer in the drafts, but then I haven't read everything. I haven't checked to see whether all of the information that's in this diagram, such as the correct "type" of every transformation, is in the drafts. For example, I'm not sure that one can infer from the direct semantics that the semantics of a collection of ontologies is the semantics of the union of the things (axioms etc) in the ontologies in the collection, or that no semantics is given for ontology collections that are not imports closed. I think there are subtleties around imports that I don't understand and aren't captured by the diagram. Many of the boxes and arrows could be labeled with or linked to the various documents, e.g. 'OWL/XML document' to the specification for OWL/XML. If the diagram reflects some misunderstanding of mine that would not have been cleared up by reading all of the drafts, that would be an opportunity to improve one or more of them. Best Jonathan
Attachments
- application/pdf attachment: OWL2.pdf
Received on Saturday, 31 January 2009 01:18:47 UTC