Re: Review of Direct Semantics (ACTION 314)

Michael Schneider wrote:
> 
[snip]
>>> * §1, 2nd par: "Since OWL 2 is an extension of OWL DL, ..." Didn't we
>> want to
>>> turn away from this statement?
>>>
>> But this actually is true: each OWL DL ontology is an OWL 2 DL ontology,
>> and it is therefore an OWL 2 ontology. Hence, I don't really see a
>> problem with this statement.
> 
> Yes, you are right. But what I actually had in mind was that we 
> had LC comments on this particular kind of statements, 
> for example LC 28/FH2, which specifically refers to this phrase in the 
> Direct Semantics:
> 
>   <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/0035.html>
> 
> So, I strongly suggest to change the text here.
> 
> I can see that, in this particular case, this statement is a rational
> for the observation that the Direct Semantics is also a semantics for
> the original OWL DL and OWL Lite. So, that's really good information 
> that people will be happy to learn.
>  
> Suggestion, why not start the sentence with something approximately like:
> 
>   "Since this semantics in this document is an extension 
>   of the Direct Semantics of OWL 1 ..."
> 
> IMHO, this will be completely uncontentious for people outside the WG, 
> and will still meet the purpose of the sentence.
> 

I must admit that I fully agree with Michael's reaction here. I know
that is _not_ Boris' intention, but the sentence could be understood by
saying that OWL 2 extends OWL DL only and nothing else, ie, only the OWL
2 DL with direct semantics is the _real_ one.

Let us not wake up sleeping animals like lions, dogs, shakals, or
whatever animal our respective languages use for this purpose:-)

Cheers

Ivan

-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf