W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > April 2009

differences between OWL 1 and OWL 2

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 14:26:40 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20090401.142640.227626518.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: public-owl-wg@w3.org
As far as I know, the changes from OWL 1 to OWL 2 are additions, with
only a very few exceptions.  The differences could be described as

  OWL 2 is almost entirely compatible with OWL 1, both syntactically and

  The functional syntax for OWL 2 is organized differently than the
  abstract syntax for OWL 1, but every construct in the OWL 1 abstract
  syntax has a directly corresponding construct in the OWL 2 functional

  Just as in OWL 1, OWL 2 can handle all RDF graphs.  The vocabulary
  that is given special meaning in OWL 2 includes the special vocabulary
  of OWL 1.  However, the use of owl:DataRange is deprecated --
  rdfs:Datatype should be used instead.

  The direct semantics for OWL 2 is almost completely compatible with
  the direct semantics for OWL 1.  The only difference is that
  annotations are semantics-free in the direct semantics for OWL 2.

  The RDF-based semantics for OWL 2 is completely compatible with the
  RDF-based semantics for OWL 1.  Some of the details of this semantics
  have changed, but the set of inferences are the same.

  The treatment of importing in RDF documents has changed slightly in
  OWL 2 if the RDF graphs are to be considered as OWL 2 DL ontologies.
  In OWL 1, importing happened first, so the entire merged graph was
  considered as one unit.  In OWL 2, the individual documents are
  considered separately in most cases.  This means that there are some
  groups of documents that could form an OWL 1 DL ontology but that do
  not form OWL 2 DL ontologies.
Received on Wednesday, 1 April 2009 18:26:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:41:58 UTC