- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 17:11:03 -0400 (EDT)
- To: schneid@fzi.de
- Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
From: "Michael Schneider" <schneid@fzi.de> Subject: RE: differences between OWL 1 and OWL 2 Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 22:38:07 +0200 > Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > >> 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. > > I think the removal of the comprehension conditions [1] from the normative > set of semantic conditions is a significant change, and, to my knowledge, > has already been noticed by some. So saying "completely compatible" should > probably be avoided. This is why I used "compatible" and not "equivalent". > The question is whether it should be mentioned in a user facing document. > Perhaps one can circumscribe it somehow (in a highlevel way), and point to > the "Changes" section [2] of the RDF-Based Semantics for technical details > (which then points to even more technical details :)). > > Michael > > [1] <http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/rdfs.html#comprehension_principles> > [2] > <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/RDF-Based_Semantics#Appendix:_Changes_from_ > the_OWL_RDF-Compatible_Semantics_.28Informative.29> peter
Received on Wednesday, 1 April 2009 21:09:47 UTC