Re: draft response for LC comment 63 JO1

Hi Peter,

A minor point.

In:
The reason for a normative and recommendation track status for the OWL 2
XML syntax is to say that OWL 2 tools that use an XML syntax for OWL 2
*should* use the XML syntax provided in the OWL 2 recommendation.

s/that use an XML syntax/that use an XML syntax for exchange of/
Presumably this should be fixed in the underlying document unless
obvious from the immediate context.

-Alan

On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 10:07 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider
<pfps@research.bell-labs.com> wrote:
> [Draft Response for LC Comment 63:] JO1
>
> Dear Jacco,
>
> Thank you for your message
>  <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Feb/0013.html>
> on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts.
>
> The Working Group acknowledges that the recent last call document set
> confused some readers, particularly with respect to the overall OWL 2
> environment and the various syntaxes for OWL 2.  At its last
> face-to-face meeting the Working Group has, therefore, added a new
> document to the OWL 2 suite, entitled "Document Overview". The document
> has not yet been published, but an editor's draft is publicly available
> at:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Document_Overview
>
> The Document Overview document describes the status of the various
> syntaxes for OWL 2 and clearly states that RDF/XML is the primary syntax
> for the exchange of OWL 2 ontologies.  This status is reiterated in the
> Conformance document.  The Document Overview document states that the
> XML syntax need not be supported by OWL 2 tools.
>
> There are other parts of the OWL 2 recommendation that are optional as
> well.  There can be OWL 2 tools that only implement OWL 2 RL, for
> example.
>
> The reason for a normative and recommendation track status for the OWL 2
> XML syntax is to say that OWL 2 tools that use an XML syntax for OWL 2
> *should* use the XML syntax provided in the OWL 2 recommendation.
> Making the XML syntax a working group note would not provide this sort
> of guidance.
>
> The Working Group plans on making the examples in the OWL 2 Structural
> Specification and Functional Syntax document available in other
> syntaxes, even though that document only defines one syntax.  The
> Working group does not intend to make changes to the XML Serialization
> document in response to your message.
>
> We hope that the new document and other upcoming changes address your
> concerns.
>
> 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 Monday, 16 March 2009 18:25:54 UTC