Re: OWL2DL ontology is a graph or a set of axioms?

On Mar 8, 2015, at 20:18, "Leila Bayoudhi" <bayoudhileila@yahoo.fr<mailto:bayoudhileila@yahoo.fr>> wrote:

Hi,
Please, I want to check some points:
1/can we consider OWL2DL ontology as set of axioms?

It depends on your purpose but that's generally fine.

Or does the OWL2DL ontology document is it a set of axioms
2/Most of works in litterature consider it as graph?

This is not true.

Are they right?

What do you mean by "right"? You can represent Ana owl 2 DL ontology as a lot of different sorts of graph including an RDF graph.
3/ According the OWL2  structural specification, is it considered as a set of axioms or graph?

You can get this quickly from the spec.

4/ Please, if I will work on OWL2DL ontology,:
    -Must I refer  essentially to OWL 2 Web Ontology Language Direct Semantics (Second Edition)<http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/REC-owl2-direct-semantics-20121211/>?

I would.













OWL 2 Web Ontology Language Direct Semantics (Second Edition)<http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/REC-owl2-direct-semantics-20121211/>
OWL 2 Web Ontology Language Direct Semantics (Second Edition) W3C Recommendation 11 December 2012 This version: http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/REC-owl2-direct-semantics-20121211/ Latest version (series 2):


Afficher sur www.w3.org<http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/REC-owl2-direct-semantics-20121211/>

Aperçu par Yahoo




   - Have I to use Direct Model-Theoretic Semantics for OWL 2 in order to introduce the OWL2DL ontology (in my papers)?

It depends on the venue. If you aren't modifying the semantics or really using it in a proof then a cite is fine.
Regards and thanks in advance.