- From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 23:55:16 +0100
- To: Daniel Barclay <daniel@fgm.com>
- Cc: public-owl-comments@w3.org
Dear Daniel, Thank you for your comment <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/ 2009Sep/0011.html> on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts. In the relevant UML definition an enumeration of individuals is associated with a set of individuals. The definition of structural equivalence is based on the equivalence of these sets. As discussed in Section 2.1 [1], sets written in a concrete syntax (such as the functional syntax) are not necessarily expected to be duplicate free, but duplicates should (in the RFC 2119 sense) be eliminated when ontology documents written in such syntaxes are converted into instances of the UML classes of the structural specification, i.e., during parsing. The wording you mention is not part of the formal definition of enumerations of individuals but is intended to provide an informal and intuitive explanation of the meaning of this piece of syntax. We were aware of the possible confusion between UML classes/instances and ontology classes/instances and were careful to ensure that we explicitly say "UML Class" or "instance of UML Class" whenever we are referring to the former. We now explicitly mention this, as well as clarifying some other issues related to the use of UML, in Section 2.1 [1]. To review these changes please refer to the relevant diff [2]. [1] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Syntax#Structural_Specification [2] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php? title=Syntax&diff=25572&oldid=25485 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, Ian Horrocks on behalf of the W3C OWL Working Group
Received on Tuesday, 15 September 2009 22:55:53 UTC