- From: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
- Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 11:03:00 +0200
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <0EF30CAA69519C4CB91D01481AEA06A00125F746@judith.fzi.de>
Hi Peter! >-----Original Message----- >From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org] >On Behalf Of Peter F. Patel-Schneider >Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 7:02 PM >To: Michael Schneider >Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org >Subject: Re: Occurrences of "OWL 2 Full" in our documents > >I think that this is generally a good idea. The changes are almost >entirely in the RDF-Based Semantics document. > >A few concerns: > >1/ Trivial - There are two cases where OWL 2 Full vocabulary is written >as >"vocabularies for RDF, RDFS or OWL 2 Full", which will need to be >checked carefully. Yes, thanks. Changed to "... OWL 2" there. >2/ Minor - The Introduction will probably need some wordsmithing >after the term replacements have been done, particularly where it refers >to OWL 2 Full ontologies. Yes, this resulted in a few minor changes. >3/ Moderate - "OWL 2 vocabulary" is not a phrase that I would use here, >without some special preparation, even though "OWL vocabulary" was used >in S&AS. > >In particular I would not go along with > The OWL 2 vocabulary is a set of IRIs [RFC 3987], which occur in the > sets of RDF triples that build the RDF encodings of all the OWL 2 > language constructs [OWL 2 RDF Mapping]. > >I suggest instead using "OWL 2 RDF-graph vocabulary", I guess, although >that is rather pedantic, particularly as it would be a frequently used >term. To reduce the level of pedantery the document could define "OWL 2 >RDF-graph vocabulary" and then say "(commonly abbreviated in this >document to ''OWL 2 vocabulary'')". Having a more distinguishing name instead of just "vocabulary" is a good idea, IMO, in order to avoid, e.g., confusion with the vocabularies of the Functional Syntax or the OWL/XML syntax. I can see, however, a few slight issues with the concrete suggestion "RDF-graph vocabulary". First, I would then like to generally call the vocabularies of other RDF semantics in the way "XXX RDF-graph vocabulary" as well. But this would sound strange for XXX := "RDF(S)". So I thought "graph vocabulary" might be good. But then, I remembered that the RDF Semantics (in Section 0.3) already talks about a "vocabulary of a graph" (in contrast to a vocabulary of an interpretation), and I have called this a "graph vocabulary" myself several times in the past. But, after all, isn't the most distinguishing aspect of the RDF/RDFS/OWL 1/2 vocabularies that they consist of URI/IRIs? They don't have much to do with RDF graphs. So why not simply call them "IRI vocabularies"? This seems to at least avoid confusion with our other syntaxes. >If the sentence above was then removed from the Introduction Agreed, this was a strange beast, anyway, so it's good to have it removed. (I filled the gap with a sentence mentioning datatypes and facets, which are also treated in the "Vocabulary" section.) >and the redundant sentence > The OWL 2 Full vocabulary is a set of IRIs [RFC 3987] with the > standard prefix name owl (see Section 3.1). >was removed from 3.2, things would be cleaner. Removed! Ok, here is the complete diff: <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=RDF-Based_Semantics&diff=21795&oldid=21756> It's a lot, but the three most interesting changes are those in the Introduction (§1), in Section 2.1, and in the "Changes" section (§9). In all cases, I basically reused the formulation from the Document Overview of the form "RDF graph interpreted using the RDF-Based Semantics" (in slight variants) for referring to "OWL 2 Full". Is this ok? Then we (I?) can adjust the "Conformance" document accordingly, and afterwards we seem to be ready to go. >peter Cheers, Michael >From: "Michael Schneider" <schneid@fzi.de> >Subject: Occurrences of "OWL 2 Full" in our documents >Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 14:46:42 +0200 > >> Hi all! >> >> Here is a sort of "Last Call". :) It's very late in the day, I know, >but >> this is a last attempt to cope with the current "OWL (2) Full" naming >> situation. I'm still unhappy with it, and I am probably not the only >one >> (see below). -- Dipl.-Inform. Michael Schneider Research Scientist, Dept. Information Process Engineering (IPE) Tel : +49-721-9654-726 Fax : +49-721-9654-727 Email: michael.schneider@fzi.de WWW : http://www.fzi.de/michael.schneider ======================================================================= 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, RP Karlsruhe Vorstand: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Rüdiger Dillmann, Dipl. Wi.-Ing. Michael Flor, Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Wolffried Stucky, Prof. Dr. Rudi Studer Vorsitzender des Kuratoriums: Ministerialdirigent Günther Leßnerkraus =======================================================================
Received on Friday, 10 April 2009 09:03:41 UTC