- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 08:04:29 -0500 (EST)
- To: ivan@w3.org
- Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
Looks good. peter From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> Subject: DRAFT response to comment #54, Jan Wielemaker Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 11:38:55 +0100 > This response is, actually, a possible pattern for a number of other > comments on the exact role of OWL/XML. Ie, if this is fine for the > group, we may want to reuse, essentially, the same text for a number of > others (to be exactly identified). > > The reason I chose this one is because Jan did _not_ question the rec > track aspect of OWL/XML per se (in contrast to, eg, the corresponding > UvA comment). In this sense this one is simpler... > > Here is the proposed text. I have also updated > http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/JR8. > > Ivan > > ======== > > Dear Jan, > > Thank you for your comment > > <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/0069.html> > on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts. > > Unfortunately, your comment is based on a confusion, which is our fault > in not conveying the message clearly enough. The technical fact is that > there is no change between OWL 1 and OWL 2 in terms of the stack you > refer to in your comment. > > Indeed, Section 2.1 of the Conformance and Test Cases document states > the following: > > "Several syntaxes have been defined for OWL 2 ontology documents, some > or all of which could be used by OWL 2 tools for exchanging documents. > However, conformant OWL 2 tools that take ontology documents as input(s) > must accept ontology documents using the RDF/XML serialization [OWL 2 > Mapping to RDF Graphs], and conformant OWL 2 tools that publish ontology > documents must, if possible, be able to publish them in the RDF/XML > serialization if asked to do so (e.g., via HTTP content negotiation)." > > See: > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-owl2-test-20081202/#Conformance_.28Normative.29 > > In other words, the only _required_ exchange syntax among OWL 2 tools is > based on RDF and is RDF/XML (the only small caveat, referred to by the > 'if possible' remark in the text, is that there are valid RDF graphs > that cannot be serialized into RDF/XML, eg, if complex URI-s are used > for property IDs). Ie, the situation has _not_ changed compared to OWL 1. > > The confusion obviously comes from the fact that the OWL/XML syntax, > which was published as a note[1] for OWL 1, is now on Recommendation > track. OWL/XML for OWL 1 was an optional feature that OWL 1 tools could > implement if they wished to do so. The fact that OWL/XML is now planned > as a recommendation has not changed this. > > All that being said, the Working Group recognizes that this issue may > lead to confusion, as witnessed by a number of comments that expressed > the same concerns as yours. The group will take appropriate steps in > conveying this information better by, eg, including multi-syntax formats > into the functional specification, or making the situation clearer in > the appropriate status sections. Details of these steps are not yet > decided at this time. > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-xmlsyntax/ > > Please acknowledge receipt of this email to > <mailto:public-owl-comments@w3.org> (replying to this email should > suffice). In your acknowledgment please let us know whether or not you > are satisfied with the working group's response to your comment. > > Regards, > Ivan Herman > on behalf of the W3C OWL Working Group > > =========== > -- > > 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
Received on Wednesday, 11 February 2009 13:04:26 UTC