RE: Naming issues

Hi!

I would prefer to have something like this:

* We have "OWL 2 XX" as the name of the respective language, consisting of a
syntax and a semantics. "XX" is one of "DL", "Full", "QL", "RL" and "EL".

* We use the terms "OWL 2 XX syntax" and "OWL 2 XX semantics", and
alternatively use the "original" names for these syntaxes and semantics. For
example, the "OWL 2 Full syntax" is RDF, and the "OWL 2 DL semantics" is the
OWL 2 Direct Semantics.

* By "OWL 2", we do not refer to any particular part of the specification,
but rather to the "whole system", whatever this means. For example, in the
OWL 2 Full spec, I am talking about the "language features of OWL 2", such
as "property restrictions", but mean them more as abstract notions that get
a particular "implementation" by Full, as well as by DL and RL. All theses
"implementations" are differing somewhat, but have enough in common to see
them as realizing the same language feature. This use of the term "OWL 2"
is, of course, pretty vague, and should therefore be explained somewhere.

* More specifically: In the case of OWL 2 Full, I often use the terms "OWL 2
DL ontology in RDF graph form" and "OWL 2 DL ontology in functional syntax
form". I need this quite often in the correspondence theorem (which I call,
btw., "OWL 2 correspondence theorem", because it is not about one particular
language). But these terms are not defined anywhere, so I have to do it
myself. Let's discuss whether we want to make these "official terms",
otherwise they will only keep "working terms" in the Full spec.

* Again more specifically: In the case of OWL 2 Full, I use the terms: "OWL
2 Direct Satisfaction" and "OWL 2 Direct Entailment", and likewise "OWL 2
Full Satisfaction" and "OWL 2 Full Entailment". I need to do something like
this, since both the Direct Semantics spec and the RDF Semantics spec only
define the terms "satisfaction" and "entailment". However, I believe that it
suffices to have this distinctions in the OWL 2 Full document (and there
only for the correspondence theorem), because everywhere else it's clear
from the context to what particular semantics the terms belong.  

This was hereby "some" feedback by me. :)

Michael
 
>-----Original Message-----
>From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org]
>On Behalf Of Ian Horrocks
>Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 1:27 PM
>To: W3C OWL Working Group
>Subject: Fwd: Naming issues
>
>
>I would appreciate *some* feedback on this proposal, even if it is
>only to say that you (dis-) like it.
>
>Thanks,
>Ian
>
>
>Begin forwarded message:
>
>> Resent-From: public-owl-wg@w3.org
>> From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
>> Date: 3 February 2009 10:11:52 GMT
>> To: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
>> Subject: Naming issues
>>
>>
>> Several of the LC comments raise the issue of the inconsistent use
>> of and/or distinction between "OWL2", "OWL2 DL" and OWL2 Full". For
>> example, [28] points out that the Direct Semantics says: "This
>> document provides the direct model-theoretic semantics for OWL 2",
>> and "Since OWL 2 is an extension of OWL DL ...". Other comments
>> alluding to this problem include [48].
>>
>> Having talked to Ivan and others about this I would like to offer
>> the following suggestion as a way to address the comments.
>>
>> In Syntax:
>>
>> 1) Check the list near the beginning of Section 3 to ensure that it
>> includes *all* conditions on ontologies that are mentioned
>> elsewhere in the document, and change it to be a numbered list so
>> that the various conditions can be more easily referred to.
>>
>> 2) Add some text explaining the effect of (not) satisfying various
>> sub-sets of the restrictions. E.g., restrictions x, y and z are
>> needed if the Direct Semantics is to be applicable. We can also
>> state that ontologies not satisfying any of these restrictions can
>> still be serialised as RDF and interpreted using the RDF-based
>> Semantics.
>>
>> 3) Check the text in this and other documents for "inappropriate"
>> use of "OWL2", changing to "OWL2 DL/Full" and/or adding references
>> back to Semantics Section 3 as needed.
>>
>> 4) Carefully proof read the various documents to ensure there are
>> no further ambiguities such as inconsistent use of the word
>> "ontology", and if any are found, work on fixes.
>>
>> Ian
>>
>> [28] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/
>> 2009Jan/0035.html
>> [48] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Jan/
>> 0084.html
>>
>