- From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 09:54:38 +0000
- To: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Dear Jeremy,
Thank you for your comment
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/
2009Feb/0008.html>
on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts.
Thank you for pointing out this problem. The Syntactic Conformance
section of the Conformance and Test Cases document (see [1]) has been
revised to be clearer in general and to rectify these problems in
particular. The main definitions of the different kinds of ontology
documents now refer explicitly to the RDF/XML syntax and are now
complete definitions, e.g.:
"An OWL 2 DL ontology document is an OWL 2 Full ontology document
that can be successfully parsed using the canonical parsing process
as defined in the OWL 2 Syntax specification [OWL 2 Specification]
and the procedure for mapping from RDF graphs to the structural
specification described in the OWL 2 Mapping to RDF Graphs [OWL 2
Mapping to RDF Graphs] to produce an instance of the OWL 2 ontology
class satisfying all of the restrictions described in Section 3 of
the OWL 2 Syntax specification [OWL 2 Specification]."
Similarly, the example is now specific to the XML syntax. It says "An
XML document is an OWL 2 DL ontology document iff [certain conditions
are met]"; i.e., an XML document is an OWL 2 DL ontology document if
said conditions are met, and it is not an OWL 2 DL ontology document
if said conditions are not met.
[1] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/
Conformance_and_Test_Cases#Syntactic_Conformance
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,
Ian Horrocks
on behalf of the W3C OWL Working Group
Received on Thursday, 5 March 2009 09:55:25 UTC