W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > July 2008

A possible way of going forward with OWL-R unification (ISSUE-131)

From: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 16:20:57 +0100
To: <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <005d01c8e2a0$8d9ab430$7212a8c0@wolf>

Hello,

Here is a possible way of going forward with ISSUE-131.

- We add to the introduction of the Profiles document a definition of what it means for an RDF graph G to be an instance of profile
P:

"Let G be an RDF graph closed w.r.t. imports. G is a P-ontology if the triples in G can be parsed into an ontology in structural
specification that satisfies the grammar given in the profile specification for P".

- We change Section 4 to talk only about OWL-R, and not about OWL-R DL and OWL-R Full.

- We rename Section 4.2 to "Profile Specification".

- We delete Section 4.3.1.

- We rename Section 4.3.2 into Section 4.3 and call it "Reasoning in OWL-R and RDF Graphs using Rules".

- In current Section 4.4, we already have a statement that, for OWL-R ontologies, describes the consequences that these rules
produce. In the end of this section, however, we would add the following sentence:

"The rules from Section 4.3 can be applied to arbitrary RDF graphs, in which case the produced consequences are sound but not
necessarily complete."

Please let me know how you feel about this.

Regards,

	Boris
Received on Thursday, 10 July 2008 15:22:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:05 UTC