Re: draft response to LC comment 60/JC2

Hi Ian,

As written, this doesn't seem to work. The definition says
"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]".
Then it says: "An XML document is an OWL 2 DL ontology document
iff...". But as an XML document is not parsed using the OWL 2 Mapping
to RDF Graphs, this can't be satisfied.

-Alan


On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 5:54 AM, Ian Horrocks
<ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
> 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 Monday, 16 March 2009 17:51:20 UTC