- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 19:53:45 +0100
- To: public-owl-wg@w3.org
Following up on the telecon, I started a page for the BC audit. <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Backward_compatibility_audit> As I understand it, any BC issues should go on Tracker. Discussion can take place on the Wiki page or on list. ================================== Some of the documents make BC claims like: """" Every OWL 1.1 ontology can be serialized in RDF, so every OWL 1.1 ontology in RDF is a valid OWL Full ontology. The RDF syntax of OWL 1.1 is backwards-compatible with OWL DL, this is, every OWL DL ontology in RDF is a valid OWL 1.1 ontology.""" It would be good to verify these. There are some clear non-BC points. For example, the Functional Syntax is not BC with the Abstract Syntax, and quite radically so. There is a rationale section: <http://www.webont.org/owl/1.1/owl_specification.html#A> And a paper: <http://www.webont.org/owled/2006/acceptedLong/submission_13.pdf> Plus the papers discussing the OWL API at OWLED 2006 and 2007 mention the advantages of the new Functional Syntax. So, the current documents reflect a view on essential vs. inessential, which I think it is pretty intuitive. I've not heard anyone yet claim that that view got it objectionable wrong, but I hesitate to predict whether this shall continue. If you object to the lack of BC between the functional and abstract syntax, please say so. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2007 18:52:22 UTC