- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 16:00:11 -0500 (EST)
- To: public-owl-wg@w3.org
[Draft Response for LC Comment 32:] CO1 Dear Chimezie, Thank you for your message http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/0039.html on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts. Arbitrary RDF graphs can include constructs that have surprising consequences. The reasons for these are many and varied, including effects on the "syntax" of OWL 2. Because there are so many ways in which the rules could incorrect, the working group has decided not to be more explicit in the introduction to OWL 2 RL. There are an infinite number of RDFS axiomatic triples, so including them all in the OWL 2 RL rules does not directly lead to an effective rule implementation. There are some RDFS rules that produce consequences that are not relevant to the conclusions guaranteed by Theorem PR1. Listing all the "deficiencies" is not particularly easy, and would probably only confuse the issue. The working group has therefore decided not to be more explicit in the preamble to Theorem PR1. 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 No trees are known to have been harmed in the preparation of this response.
Received on Thursday, 19 February 2009 21:00:21 UTC