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

ACTION-210: Review on "Conformance" section

From: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 13:43:30 +0200
Message-ID: <0EF30CAA69519C4CB91D01481AEA06A0B99055@judith.fzi.de>
To: <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
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.

* 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".

* 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.

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!?

* 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.

* 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? ;-))
  
* 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.

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 Sunday, 21 September 2008 11:44:12 UTC

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