Re: 3rd Draft response to LC comment 30 (FH4)

Ian,

I do not mind using this text, but Frank explicitly asked whether AS is
still usable. Why did you leave that part out?

Ivan

P.S. As an aside, although the text on FS/FOL came from an earlier
version of the draft, as written by Bijan, I must admit that this
argument seemed to be valid to me. The only way I can explain myself the
order of the various arguments and parameters in the language is when I
look at the way the same formulae would be written in FOL. But that may
be only me, I do not mind taking that out...

Ian Horrocks wrote:
> Another issue with the proposed response is that I don't think it
> clearly answers Frank's main concern (as I understand it), which is
> backwards compatibility of the RDF syntax. I also wonder why you talk
> about the FS being closer to FOL syntax -- I don't recall this being a
> motivation and I doubt that it is relevant to Frank or to  (m)any other
> people. Finally, w.r.t. the structural syntax, this has been changed in
> *many* respects, so I doubt that compatibility of the structural syntax
> is particularly relevant here.
> 
> I therefore suggest the following response:
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> It is important to note that nothing changed on the RDF side, and that
> the treatment of anonymous individuals in OWL 2 is fully backwards
> compatible with that in OWL 1. Even on the structural syntax side, there
> is no change in expressive power, but we restructured the syntax to be
> in closer correspondence with RDF graphs to make it clearer that
> anonymous individuals are in direct correspondence with blank nodes. In
> the example you mentioned, for example, the "_:1" simply represents a
> blank node in the RDF graph.
> 
> We agree this isn't made very clear in the documents, and we will try to
> improve the presentation. For example, we plan to add some explanatory
> text into the New Features and Rationale document on the change of syntax.
> 
> We hope this answers your concerns on this particular issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 20 Feb 2009, at 11:08, Michael Schneider wrote:
> 
>> Ivan wrote:
>>
>>> For example, one can refer to anonymous/blank nodes from
>>> more than one place, hence a larger class of RDF graphs can be expressed
>>> in FS.
>>
>> I would like to see an example for something that can now be written
>> in the Functional Syntax, for which there was no corresponding way to
>> express it in the old Abstract Syntax. The global syntactic
>> restrictions in Section 11.2 of the Structural Spec are pretty
>> restrictive, AFAICT.
>>
>> Michael
>>
>> -- 
>> Dipl.-Inform. Michael Schneider
>> Research Scientist, Dept. Information Process Engineering (IPE)
>> Tel  : +49-721-9654-726
>> Fax  : +49-721-9654-727
>> Email: schneid@fzi.de
>> WWW  : http://www.fzi.de/ipe/eng/mitarbeiter.php?id=555
>>
>> ==============================================================================
>>
>>
>> FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik an der Universität Karlsruhe
>> Haid-und-Neu-Str. 10-14, D-76131 Karlsruhe
>> Tel.: +49-721-9654-0, Fax: +49-721-9654-959
>> Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
>> Stiftung Az: 14-0563.1 Regierungspräsidium Karlsruhe
>> Vorstand: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Rüdiger Dillmann, Dipl. Wi.-Ing. Michael Flor,
>> Prof. Dr. rer. nat. Dr. h.c. Wolffried Stucky, Prof. Dr. rer. nat.
>> Rudi Studer
>> Vorsitzender des Kuratoriums: Ministerialdirigent Günther Leßnerkraus
>>
>> ==============================================================================
>>
>>
> 

-- 

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