Re: completed draft response for LC comment 21 JDB2

Ship it!

On 12 Mar 2009, at 00:32, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

> [Draft Response for LC Comment 21] JDB2
>
> Dear Jos,
>
> Thank you for your message
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/ 
> 0024.html>
> on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts.
>
>
> Anchors have been added in many places, feel free to ask for more, as
> adding anchors changes neither the form nor the meaning of the  
> documents.
> The general form of the anchors are def_<term_with_underscores>, but
> this was not feasible in all cases.   The documents provide anchors  
> for
> each section which can also be used in other documents.
>
> Diffs are not provided here for all changes, as the addition of  
> anchors
> may have been interspersed with other work on the documents.
>
> Initial diffs for Direct Semantics can be found at:
> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php? 
> title=Direct_Semantics&diff=17912&oldid=17717
> Initial diffs for Syntax can be found at:
> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php? 
> title=Syntax&diff=17910&oldid=17665
>
>
> Structural Specification and Functional Syntax document:
>
> The discussion of datatype maps in Section 4 of the Specification
> document is not a formal one, it concentrates on those parts of  
> datatype
> maps that are needed for the syntax, deferring formal discussion to
> Section 2 of the Direct Semantics document.  It is thus appropriate  
> that
> Section 4 of the Syntax document does not explicitly call out the
> semantic mappings that are part of datatype maps, only alluding to  
> their
> presence.
>
> The precisionDecimal datatype of XML Schema perhaps could have been
> included in OWL 2.  However, the definition of equality and order on
> precisionDecimal does not appear to be what would be desired in a
> representational setting (which would instead be based on viewing
> elements of the datatype as ranges of numbers).
>
> Due to several comments and implementation experience, hexBinary and
> base64Binary now have disjoint value spaces, so there is no difference
> from XML Schema.  This is a change to OWL 2.
>
> The OWL WG agrees that PNG would be preferable to GIF.  However,  
> GIF is
> acceptable to W3C and the figures have been generated using tools that
> only produce GIF.
>
>
> Direct Semantics document:
>
> Full linking from the Direct Semantics is a major task, which  
> would, for
> example, include linking syntax.  Links have been added in the
> Vocabulary section. The diffs are
> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php? 
> title=Direct_Semantics&diff=17913&oldid=17912
>
> The definition for datatype maps in Direct Semantics extends datatype
> maps from RDF Semantics, in particular for facets.
>
> The wording "satisfies appropriate conditions listed in the following
> sections" in Section 2.3 has been changed to "satisfies the  
> condition in
> the tables below for the axiom". The diffs are
> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php? 
> title=Direct_Semantics&diff=17914&oldid=17913
>
> Axiom closure is defined in Syntax.  A link to the definition has been
> added where the term is used. The diffs are
> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php? 
> title=Direct_Semantics&diff=17915&oldid=17914
>
> If the document was being rewritten from scratch, the subsections of
> section 2.3 might not be needed, but they seem to be innocuous and  
> will
> stay for now.
>
> The definition of axiom closure from Syntax includes "renaming  
> apart" so
> the parentheses in 2.3.6 are appropriate.
>
> Section 2.5 now includes a standard definition for variables and the
> definition of Boolean Query Answering notes that quantification  
> needs to
> be considered.  The diffs are
> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php? 
> title=Direct_Semantics&diff=17918&oldid=17915
>
> In Section 3 "is is" has been replaced by "is".  No diffs are  
> available
> for this interesting change.
>
> The second edition of the DL handbook is now referenced.  Again no  
> diffs
> are available for this useful change.
>
> "I" is uniformly used as a signal for an interpretation, instead of
> sometimes Int and sometimes I.  The diffs are
> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php? 
> title=Direct_Semantics&diff=17932&oldid=17923
>
> The above changes are all editorial.
>
>
> Profiles document:
>
> As stated in the document, OWL 2 RL is designed for easy and efficient
> implementation using existing forward-chaining rule systems.  Adding
> owl:Thing or reflexive object properties needs rules that operate over
> all individuals, which goes against efficiency, and may not even be
> possible in some rule systems.  Similarly, most rule systems are
> designed for positive ground facts which dictates against allowing
> negative property assertions.
>
> The phrase "General concepts of the language" has been replaced by an
> explicit pointer to Section 13.1 of Syntax. This change was done in  
> two
> phases:
> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php? 
> title=Profiles&diff=prev&oldid=19186
> and
> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php? 
> title=Profiles&diff=19552&oldid=19193
>
> The non-terminal subObjectPropertyExpressions is used uniformly
> throughout the document set, but it really should be
> subObjectPropertyExpression.  This is only a change to a non- 
> terminal in
> the grammar, which is an editorial change.  The diffs are:
> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php? 
> title=Profiles&diff=18708&oldid=18687
> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php? 
> title=Syntax&diff=18707&oldid=18533
>
> The above changes are all editorial.
>
>
> RDF-Based Semantics document:
>
> As a general note, please be aware that the RDF-Based Semantics is not
> yet a Last Call working draft, and it has received considerable  
> editing
> since the last publication in December.
>
> It is indeed intended to have the same set of datatypes and facets in
> the RDF-Based Semantics spec as in the Structural Specification. The
> working group agrees that this should be more explicitly stated, since
> it does not easily follow from the text in the published working
> draft. Therefore, the working group plans to add clarifying text in  
> the
> next published working draft.
>
> Note that the OWL 2 RDF-Based Semantics aims for full compatibility  
> with
> the semantics defined in the RDF Semantics specification. The
> semantics there already provides notions of datatypes and datatype  
> maps,
> and defines certain semantic conditions for them. In particular, as  
> for
> OWL 1 Full, the central definition of an OWL 2 Full interpretation
> provided in the RDF-Based Semantics document builds on top of the
> definition of a so called "D-interpretation", as defined in the RDF
> Semantics specification, and by this the existing definitions of
> datatypes and datatype maps from the RDF Semantics specification are
> reused.
>
> Further, since OWL 2 provides for the new concept of datatype facets,
> the definition of a datatype, as given in the RDF Semantics
> specification, has been extended by the notion of a facet
> space. Extending the definition of a datatype is explicitly  
> permitted by
> the RDF Semantics specification (see section 5.1 of [2]).
>
> Nevertheless, it is true that the different concepts used in the
> definition of the extension for facets did not well match the concepts
> used in the Direct Semantics specification in the last published  
> working
> draft. This is currently under revision, and the final outcome will be
> that the different concepts are compatible with each other in that the
> different notions of datatype maps can be easily transformed in each
> other.
>
> Thank you for pointing out the typographical error "an OWL", it  
> will be
> fixed in the next publication.
>
> The purpose of Section 6 of the RDF Semantics is to show how the two
> semantics of OWL 2, the RDF-Based Semantics and the Direct Semantics,
> relate to each other. There is corresponding material in the OWL 1
> recommendations.  Be informed that at the time of the last  
> publication,
> this section was in a very early and incomplete state. A final and  
> much
> enhanced version of this section is planned for the next publication.
>
>
> 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
> Michael Schneider
> on behalf of the W3C OWL Working Group
>

Received on Sunday, 15 March 2009 19:32:06 UTC