Re: 2nd Draft response to LC comment 30 (FH4)

Thanks.

All seems good. Howvere, I'm not sure that the second section "The
primary motivation of changing from the OWL 1 abstract syntax (AS)
..."  is needed in that response. Unless there is extra info that I
don't know or missed, AS vs FS was not expliciley raised in the 2
quoted emails (1st or 2nd). I'd be inclined to remove it to remain
focused on their explicit content and not to extend our response to
that.

Nevertheless, since I believe it's highly relevant to document this
issue somewhere in our docs, we may add something similar in the
Syntax or/and in  NF&R. I have added it in the new drafted section 3
of NF&R [1].

[1] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/New_Features_and_Rationale#Other_Design_Choices_and_Rationale


Christine

2009/2/19 Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>:
> After the discussion yesterday, here is my draft. (The wiki page has
> also been updated).
>
> Ivan
>
> -------------------------------
> To: Frank van Harmelen <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>
> CC: public-owl-comments@w3.org
> Subject: [LC response] To Frank van Harmelen
>
> Dear Frank,
>
> Thank you for your comment
>
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/0037.html>
> on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts.
>
> We also note the 'addendum' to your original comment in
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Feb/0014.html
>
> And we thank you for helping us avoiding further confusion on this issue.
>
> Indeed, as you note in your second mail, the current Functional Syntax
> (FS) notation uses the _:x syntax to denote anonymous individuals. This
> is a consequence of the way the new, functional syntax works.
>
> The primary motivation of changing from the OWL 1 abstract syntax (AS)
> to the OWL 2 FS was that the FS is closer to the syntax used in first
> order logic, which makes various specification issues as well as
> relating OWL 2 abstract constructs to the general literature easier. As
> the primary role of the FS is to _define_ the structure of OWL 2 (and
> not necessarily to serve as a serialization syntax), the clarity of the
> syntax was an important factor for choosing it.
>
> As for the usability of AS in OWL 2: if used as an exchange syntax then,
> of course, OWL 1 ontologies written in AS may be input to OWL 2 tools
> and remain valid ontologies. But we must emphasize that this is an issue
> of the tool providers: the only _required_ exchange syntax for OWL 2
> ontologies being RDF/XML, it is up to the tools to decide whether they
> would accept ontologies serialized in AS (or in FS, for that matter).
>
> We hope this answers your concerns on this particular issue
>
> 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
>



-- 
Christine

Received on Thursday, 19 February 2009 20:53:38 UTC