- From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 23:23:54 +0000
- To: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: ivan@w3.org, public-owl-wg@w3.org
+1 On 11 Feb 2009, at 13:04, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > > 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 Saturday, 14 February 2009 23:24:35 UTC