Comment on mapping.

I have not completed the review of the Mapping document, but here are  
a couple of comments:

The RDF syntax of OWL 2 is backwards-compatible with that of OWL DL:
every OWL DL ontology in RDF syntax can be mapped into a valid OWL 2
ontology using the reverse-transformation from Section 3 such that the
resulting OWL 2 ontology has exactly the same set of models as the
original OWL DL ontology.

Comment: The models are usually defined on the axiom closures. It is
not obvious to me that considering models of a single ontology
document is of practical use. In general, it feels like there is a
blurring between ontology documents and what users would generally
consider to be an ontology, namely the documents and its imports. I'm
also not clear on whether there is a difference between the document
and it's imports and the axiom closure.

Doc: elt denotes an entity, an anonymous individual, or a literal.

Values of annotations. Not an arbitrary URI? What about  

It is not my expectation that these would necessarily be addressed  
before we public the next working draft.


Received on Wednesday, 17 September 2008 16:57:55 UTC