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

Boris,

I do not see how this answers the questions I had in

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jul/0093.html

Isn't it correct that this approach will make some RDF Graphs formally 
incorrect OWL-R graphs (even if the rules can handle them without any 
problems)?

Ivan

Boris Motik wrote:
> 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
> 
> 

-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf