- From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 14:18:49 +0000
- To: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>, W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Sounds good to me. Michael: any comment? Ian On 13 Feb 2009, at 14:36, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > > [Response for LC Comment 53] > > Dear Jonathan, > > Thank you for your message > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Feb/ > 0000.html > on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts. > > The allowable ontologies OWL 2 DL form a syntactic subset of the OWL 2 > Full ontologies. For example, manipulation of the OWL built-in > vocabulary in certain ways is not allowable in OWL 2 DL but is > allowable > in OWL 2 Full. Similarly, use of properties as both object properties > and data properties is not allowed in OWL 2 DL but is allowed in OWL 2 > Full. > > Imports closures is another example where the syntax of OWL 2 DL is > less > permissive than the syntax of OWL 2 Full. In OWL 2 DL, if > incompatible > ontologies are imported then the ontology is considered syntactically > invalid. In OWL 2 Full, importing of incompatible ontologies is > syntactically valid (to allow any RDF as syntactically valid OWL 2 > Full). It is the intention of the WG that in OWL 2 Full such > importing > produces semantic inconsistency, although this is not yet in the OWL 2 > Full Semantics document. > > This extends the situation in OWL 1, where owl:incompatibleWith had no > formal meaning, resulting in confusion as to exactly what it was > supposed to be used for. > > Although the two definitions of imports (in OWL 2: Syntax and OWL 2: > RDF-Based Semantics) are different in form, they are the same in > behaviour. The WG will modify the wording in Section 2 of the OWL 2: > RDF-Based Semantics document, which is not yet at last call, to > conform > more closely to the wording in the OWL 2: Syntax document, and may > indeed make it point to the OWL 2: Syntax document. > > > 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 >
Received on Monday, 16 February 2009 14:19:34 UTC