Re: differences between OWL 1 and OWL 2

I'm not proposing any particular place for this text.

I don't see why it couldn't be place somewhere in NF&R.  I'm not sure
about where, though.

peter



From: Christine Golbreich <cgolbrei@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: differences between OWL 1 and OWL 2
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 20:55:14 +0200

> I'm not sure at which place your text is intended to be put. ?
> 
> NF&R is supposed to be the normal place for differences between OWL1
> and OWL 2 and Section 3 of [1] is aiming at dealing with close issues,
> and if I don't mistake, several LC responses pointed to NF&R about
> that (it's why we added this section)
> 
> Would you agree to merge that content with the existing of that section ?
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/New_Features_and_Rationale#Other_Design_Choices_and_Rationale
> 
> 
> 2009/4/1 Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>:
>> 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
>> follows:
>>
>>
>>  OWL 2 is almost entirely compatible with OWL 1, both syntactically and
>>  semantically.
>>
>>  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
>>  syntax.
>>
>>  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.
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Christine

Received on Wednesday, 1 April 2009 19:08:22 UTC