- From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:47:18 +0000
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On 25 Mar 2009, at 06:17, Ivan Herman wrote: > (My interpretation of the situation, Ian's may be a bit different) > > Jonathan Rees wrote: > [snip] > >> By 'any OWL 2 ontology' do you mean any instance of the Ontology >> UML class? >> > > That is a good way of putting it, yes See Figure 1 in the Document Overview -- it could be an instance of the Ontology UML class, but it could also be an RDF graph. > >> What is encompassed by 'OWL 2 - the entire language' ? E.g. would >> an OWL/XML document belong to 'OWL 2 - the entire language' ? This is a very generic term that encompasses all aspects of the language. The way I think about it is that if I say "blah blah OWL 2 blah blah", then the statement should still be true if I change any details of syntax or semantics occurring in the blah. Ian > > OWL/XML is serialization syntax so it is pretty much orthogonal to > this naming. An OWL/XML, by its very definition, can be translated > into FS, so it represents an OWL 2 Ontology. > > But there are RDF graphs that use OWL 2 vocabulary terms (and for > which the RDF semantics gives semantics) that cannot be > translated into an OWL 2 Ontology. Not many exist of those, and the > requirements are described in the 3rd section on the Structure and > Syntax document. Those RDF graphs are part of the entire language > of OWL 2, but are not OWL2 Ontologies. Note that both the > conformance document and the 'informal' terminology refers to _RDF > graphs_ when talking about OWL 2 Full. > > Ivan > >> Jonathan > > -- > > Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead > Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ > mobile: +31-641044153 > PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html > FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Wednesday, 25 March 2009 16:48:04 UTC