Re: Action 211-- Review of Conformance Document

Thanks for the detailed review. I have addressed most points -- see  
comments below.

On 22 Sep 2008, at 11:42, Bernardo Cuenca Grau wrote:

> Hi,
>
> This email addresses my action concerning the review of the  
> conformance document. I have considered the latest version, which  
> is integrated with the
> test document.
>
> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Test#Conformance_.28Normative.29
>
> Cheers,
>
> Bernardo
>
> ------
>
> **Beginning of Section 2**
>
> I think the section is missing an introduction that explains what  
> is the purpose and scope of the conformance definitions. Otherwise  
> the content of the document can be confusing (see below).

There is something very brief there now. I added a note saying that  
it may need to be expended.


>
> ** Section 2.1.1 **
>
> I agree with Mike Smith's and Michael Schneider's comments about  
> the document only mentioning the RDF syntax.
> For example, if we have an OWL 2 EL ontology in functional
> syntax that complies with the OWL 2 EL grammar as defined in the  
> profiles document, is it then an OWL 2 EL document? The role of the  
> RDF parsing process mentioned in the definition
> seems to me unclear in this case. It seems that the syntactic  
> conformance definitions are only focused on and targeted towards  
> the RDF syntax; however, the scope of these definitions
> should be clearly stated in the document to avoid confusion. I  
> suggest two possible fixes:
>
> 1) To make it clear in the section that the syntactic conformance  
> definition is only intended for ontologies in RDF
> 2) To change the definition of syntactic conformance to include all  
> possible syntaxes

I added a ToDo ednote.


>
> **Section 2.2.1**
>
> The definitions of semantic conformance should be slightly  
> rephrased. For example, the document says:
>
> ``*An OWL 2 DL entailment checker* is an OWL 2 entailment checker  
> that takes OWL 2 DL ontology documents as input, and uses the Model  
> Theoretic Semantics [OWL 2 Semantics <#ref-owl-2-semantics>]. It / 
> MUST/ return True only when /O_1 / entails /O_2 /, and it /MUST/  
> return False only when /O_1 / does not entail /O_2 /. It /SHOULD  
> NOT/ return Unknown. ''
>
> Should be rephrased in the following way:
>
> ``*An OWL 2 DL entailment checker* is an OWL 2 entailment checker  
> that takes OWL 2 DL ontology documents as input.  It /MUST/ return  
> True only when /O_1 / entails /O_2 / with respect to the Model  
> Theoretic Semantics [OWL 2 Semantics], and it /MUST/ return False  
> only when /O_1 / does not entail /O_2 / with respect to the Model  
> Theoretic Semantics. It /SHOULD NOT/ return Unknown. ''
>
> Similarly with the other definitions.

Done.

>
> ** Definition of the OWL 2 RL Conformance **
>
> From the definition in the document it seems that a sound and  
> complete OWL 2 DL reasoner may not be an OWL 2 RL entailment  
> checker. I find this quite strange. According to the profiles  
> document, OWL 2 RL can be seen as a syntactic fragment
> of OWL 2 (there is a proper grammar that defines such fragment). I  
> think that the problem is again that the scope of the definitions  
> is not clear in the document, which causes ambiguity. In the  
> current situation, the
> profiles and conformance documents don't seem to be in sync with  
> each other.
> I suggest the following solution. We should have two notions of  
> conformance for OWL 2 RL:
>
> 1) OWL 2 RL Entailment Checker:  an OWL 2 entailment checker that  
> takes OWL 2 RL ontology documents  as input, and uses the Model  
> Theoretic Semantics [OWL 2 Semantics <#ref-owl-2-semantics>]. It / 
> MUST/ return True only when /O_1 / entails /O_2 /, and it /MUST/  
> return False only when /O_1 / does not entail /O_2 /. It /SHOULD  
> NOT/ return Unknown.
> 2) OWL 2 RL RDF Entailment Checker: defined as in the current  
> conformance document
>
> Then we should show that there is a correspondence for OWL 2 RL  
> ontologies (as in Theorem 1 in the profiles document).

I added an EdNote mentioning your suggestion.

Ian

Received on Tuesday, 7 October 2008 20:59:13 UTC