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

Re: ACTION-210: Review on "Conformance" section

From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 21:35:05 +0100
Message-Id: <5AAC4DF0-09E3-4D77-A48A-331AA161785C@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Cc: <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
To: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>

On 21 Sep 2008, at 12:43, Michael Schneider wrote:

Thanks for the detailed review.

> Dear all,
>
> this mail is to fulfill my ACTION-210 (related to ISSUE-130) on  
> reviewing the "Conformance" section based on version
>
>   <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php? 
> title=Conformance&oldid=12922>
>
> However, there are still a few points which I like to check in more  
> depth later this day. So it may happen that I come up with a second  
> mail tomorrow.
>
>
> * Start of sec. 1
>   """
>   This section uses the words
>   MUST, MUST NOT, SHOULD and MAY
>   as in [RFC 2119].
>   """
>
> We now have some standard text used in many of our documents (e.g.  
> in sec. 1.1 of the Syntax). This should be used here, too, I think.
>
> Afterwards, everywhere in the text the rendering of the occurrences  
> of these keywords have to be changed, accordingly.

Done already.

>
> * 1.1.1: Syntactic Conformance
>   """
>   Any RDF document [RDF Syntax] is an OWL 2 Full ontology document.
>   [...]
>   An OWL 2 Full ontology document is an OWL 2 DL ontology document  
> iff [...]
>   """
>
> What is with non-RDF documents, such as documents in Functional  
> Syntax or OWL/XML? These are not treated by the definition of  
> "syntactical conformance".

The thinking behind this is that conformance for non-RDF syntaxes is  
rather trivial and seems to be adequately specified by the relevant  
documents (e.g., XML Schema) -- it is only in the case of RDF where  
there is a rather complex definition that merits something being said  
about it. Note that what is said is that an OWL xx document is an OWL  
yy document iff .... It does not say that other kinds of document are  
*not* OWL yy ontology documents.

Anyway, for the moment I have added an editors note mentioning that  
something may be said here about other syntaxes.


>
> * 1.1.2: Semantic Conformance
>   """
>   In OWL 2, semantic conditions are defined
>   with respect to a datatype map [OWL 2 Specification].
>   This MUST be either the OWL 2 Datatype map [OWL 2 Specification]
>   or an extension of the OWL 2 Datatype map
>   to include additional datatypes.
>   """
>
> The headline "semantic conformance" seems a bit broad to me, given  
> that the requirements stated in this section are restricted to  
> datatype maps.

Done.

>
> Further, there are certain restrictions on the datatype map at  
> least for OWL 2 RL, see
>
>   <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Fragments_Proposal#Entities_3>
>
>   "The following predefined OWL 2 datatypes
>   MUST NOT be used in OWL 2 RL: ..."
>
> This sounds to me as if an OWL 2 RL reasoner cannot be semantically  
> conformant!?

I don't see the problem. Provided the reasoner is sound and complete  
for the restricted set of datatypes defined in the profile, then it  
can be conformant. Similarly for the other profiles.

>
> * 1.2.1: Entailment Checker
>   """
>   An OWL 2 entailment checker takes as input two
>   OWL 2 ontology documents [...]
>   """
>
> The term "OWL 2 ontology document" is undefined. It should perhaps  
> be said that this is some kind of "collective term" for those terms  
> defined in the "syntactic conformance" section.

Changed to say "two OWL 2 Full, DL, EL, QL, or RL ontology documents".

>
> * 1.2.1 Entailment Checker
>   """
>   Five different conformance classes of
>   OWL entailment checker are defined
>   """
>
> Should be: "OWL /2/ entailment checker/s/".
>
> (I guess this was in to check the reviewers? ;-))

Done.

>
> * 1.2.1 Entailment Checker, Conformance Classes
>
> Just as a note (probably no action needed): All five entailment  
> checker classes now allow for trivial checkers which never  
> terminate or which always return "UNKNOWN" (in spite of the  
> explicit "SHOULD NOT"). That's sort of strange, but maybe there is  
> no way to deal with this situation in a meaningful way.

I don't see any way around this.

Ian



>
> Regards,
> Michael
>
> --
> Dipl.-Inform. Michael Schneider
> FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik Karlsruhe
> Abtl. Information Process Engineering (IPE)
> Tel  : +49-721-9654-726
> Fax  : +49-721-9654-727
> Email: Michael.Schneider@fzi.de
> Web  : http://www.fzi.de/ipe/eng/mitarbeiter.php?id=555
>
> FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik an der Universität Karlsruhe
> Haid-und-Neu-Str. 10-14, D-76131 Karlsruhe
> Tel.: +49-721-9654-0, Fax: +49-721-9654-959
> Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
> Az: 14-0563.1 Regierungspräsidium Karlsruhe
> Vorstand: Rüdiger Dillmann, Michael Flor, Jivka Ovtcharova, Rudi  
> Studer
> Vorsitzender des Kuratoriums: Ministerialdirigent Günther Leßnerkraus
>
Received on Tuesday, 7 October 2008 20:35:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:07 UTC