- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 13:13:35 +0100
- To: public-rif-comments@w3.org
- CC: "Web Ontology Language ((OWL)) Working Group WG" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Jeremy Carroll wrote: > The particularly wording in this e-mail is intended for formal approval > by the OWL WG at its next telecon, 21st May. The points, but not the > wording, were agreed at the 7th May telecon. We will follow up, if any > corrections to the wording are made on the 21st. I forgot to update you, at the meeting on the 21st, the decision was to approve A and C, but not B which was felt as more appropriately made as a personal comment Jeremy > This is a review of > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-rif-rdf-owl-20080415/ > > on behalf of the OWL WG. > > We have one change request, and two further comments. > > A) > Please change the sentence just before section 3.1 > > [[ > This paves the way towards combination with OWL 2, which is envisioned > to allow punning in all its syntaxes. > ]] > > and the sentence from 3.2.2.3 > > [[ > It is currently expected that OWL 2 will not define a semantics for > annotation and ontology properties; therefore, the below definition > cannot be extended to the case of OWL 2. > ]] > > with a less definitive statement such as: > > [[ > In this document, we are using OWL to refer to OWL1. While OWL2 is still > in development it is unclear how RIF will interoperate with it. At the > time of writing, we believe that with OWL2 the support for punning may > be beneficial, and that there might be particular problems in using > section 3.2.2.3. > ]] > > B) On the editors note, at the end of section 1, we advise that RDF > entailment is much less interesting than the others (simple, RDFS, D, > OWL DL, OWL Full), and we would not expect opposition to RIF not > supporting it. > > C) Several participants in our group were unconvinced by the use of the > "http://www.w3.org/2007/rif"^^rif:iri and "literal string@en"^^rif:text > and found the deviation from the well-established notation for the RDF > symbols a potential source of confusion to readers of this document, > most of whom will also be readers of other Semantic Web documents from > the W3C, and might expect a certain uniformity of style. Most of those > present at our meeting were sympathetic to this point of view, but we > felt it inappropriate to make a stronger comment on a sylistic matter. > > --- > > > > > Jeremy Carroll, hopefully on behalf of OWL WG > > > >
Received on Thursday, 29 May 2008 12:14:45 UTC