- From: Christine Golbreich <cgolbrei@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2009 11:12:23 +0100
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <b0ed1d660902150212g3c6abf9fh4b429dbdaf9295ae@mail.gmail.com>
Seems good, specially concerning the actual role of users and 'implementors' in the OWL 2 Profiles and in particular for RL where, making implementations on top of rule extended DBMS possible, e.g. ORACLE, is clear. Perhaps point to a concrete example ? Given the sentence in Lilly's comment "... in particular, identifying different subsets of OWL2 for developers with limited logic background. ..." it might be welcome to add that profile checkers* are on the way that will offer such functionality and allow them for checking just as they did before with Protégé for OWL 1 species ( Lite, DL, Full). Christine * as pointed out by http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Feb/0035.html 2009/2/14 Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com> > > Here is a draft response for all of the comment from Lilly (SS1a and > SS1b). I put them both together largely because no document changes are > being proposed (except for removing an extraneous word for Syntax, which > I have already done). > > The response for LC comment 37 could just point to this response. > > peter > > > [Response for LC Comment 26:] > > Dear Susie, > > Thank you for your message > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Jan/0033.html > on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts. > > 1/ Concerning OWL 2 Profiles: > > The OWL 2 effort was designed to extend the constructs of OWL to > encompass those that users had asked for, that researchers could > specify, and that implementers had or could implement. It is thus > definitely the case that OWL 2 is supported by research. However, the > driving force was much more users and implementers. > > The OWL profiles had a similar genesis. If the driving force behind the > OWL profiles was primarily research, then there could have been many > more profiles, and the profiles would have had a different focus. > > This is particularly the case for OWL RL. OWL RL is designed to capture > the essence of several partial implementations of OWL functionality by > means of forward chaining rules. Previously all that could be said > about these implementations was that they were partial implementations > of OWL. OWL RL provides a much more complete characterization for > rule-based implementations of OWL. Yes, there are formal results > underlying OWL RL, but these formal results are descriptive of the > extant implementations instead of being driving forces for the design of > OWL RL. > > OWL EL and OWL QL also do have a formal basis. However they again are > attempts to capture existing implementation techniques and existing > ontologies. > > In any case, the OWL 2 profiles are simply there for those who may be > interested taking exploiting desirable characteristics of > implementations of the profiles. If one does not care about these, > there is no need to consider the profiles at all. > > The OWL WG does not intend to make any changes in response to this > part of your message. > > > 2/ Concerning the Structural Specification and Functional-Style Syntax: > > Thank you for your kind words on the introduction and other parts of > this document. Also thank you for bringing to our attention the > extraneous word in Section 2.3. > > There is no notion of ownership of entities in OWL, so "ownership" is > not transferred with imports. It is the case, however, that entities in > imported ontologies can be used in the importing ontology just as if the > contents of the imported ontology were part of the importing ontology. > > The situation with -0 and +0 is unique, and is dictated by the treatment > of floats in XML Schema datatypes. There are no other similar > situations. The literals for booleans are similarly dictated by XML > Schema datatypes. If "yes" and "no" are added to the XML Schema > datatype boolean, they will then be available in OWL. > > > 3/ Mapping to RDF Graphs: > > It is definitely the case that mapping from the Functional Syntax to an > RDF graph and back again does not affect the meaning of an OWL 2 > ontology. The OWL WG expended considerable effort to make this mapping > as general as possible and to specify it in more detail than previously. > > > 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, > Peter F. Patel-Schneider > on behalf of the W3C OWL Working Group > > -- Christine
Received on Sunday, 15 February 2009 10:12:59 UTC