draft response for 52b / JR6b

[Draft Response for LC Comment 52b:] JR6b

Dear Jonathan:
Thank you for your message
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/0068.html>
on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts.

Some of your comments in the message relate to specific editorial
concerns with the RDF-Based Semantics document.  These comments are
being addressed in another reply.  This response addresses only your
comments about the use of "OWL 2", "OWL 2 DL", and "OWL 2 Full".

The working group realizes that our documents did not do a good job of
describing the terminology related to OWL 2.  To alleviate this problem
there is now a new document, the Document Overview
http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Document_Overview/.

The structure of OWL 2 ontologies is defined in the OWL 2 Structural
Specification.  The Direct Semantics provides a meaning for these
structures.  The RDF-Based Semantics provides a meaning for all RDF
graphs.  As all OWL 2 ontologies can be mapped into RDF graphs, the
RDF-Based Semantics also provides a semantics for all OWL 2 ontologies.

OWL 2 DL ontologies are those OWL 2 ontologies that admit reasoning
using well-known DL techniques when interpreted using the Direct
Semantics, and that can be mapped to RDF graphs and back again without
affecting their meaning in the Direct Semantics.  The OWL 2 Structural
Specification provides a comprehensive and compact list of the extra
conditions that are required for an OWL 2 ontology to be an OWL 2 DL
ontology.

OWL 2 Full refers to the view of RDF graphs (including all OWL 2
ontologies) under the RDF-Based Semantics, and thus, as you say, is a
combination of both syntax and semantics.

Several other documents have been edited to better describe how OWL
works.The relevant edits have ended up being interspersed with other
work, so no diff are provided here.  The current working drafts of all
the WG documents are linked to from the WG home page.

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 Wednesday, 11 March 2009 20:06:17 UTC