Re: RDF-Based Semantics ready for WG-internal Review

On 29 Mar 2009, at 21:41, Michael Schneider wrote:

> Dear all, Dear Reviewers!
>
> I'm happy to announce that the OWL 2 RDF-Based Semantics is now  
> ready for WG-internal review.
>
> <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=RDF-Based_Semantics&oldid=20977 
> >
>
> However, there are two issues that SHOULD be resolved before LC  
> publication. I regard these issues to go beyond my job as an editor.  
> There are also EdNotes on these issues placed at the beginning of  
> the document, that will only be there within the internal review  
> phase.
>
> 1) Naming-Issue:
> While the semantics is now consistently referred to as the "OWL 2  
> RDF-Based Semantics" in the whole document, there are still a lot of  
> occurrences of the word "OWL (1/2) Full" in the document, typically  
> as a prefix of some term. I did some thinking on each of these  
> occurrences, but whichever decision I would take, the outcome would  
> look rather messy to me. For the moment, I have called the old  
> semantics "OWL RDF-Compatible Semantics", as this better mirrors the  
> name "OWL 2 RDF-Based Semantics" and since this was the name of the  
> chapter of S&AS. But I am not a big fan of this renaming, in  
> particular since this chapter actually defines *two* allegedly RDF  
> compatible semantics! Eventually, I decided to stop with my  
> reflection on the names and hope for feedback by the WG on this  
> issue, primarily by my reviewers. But, after all, I am unhappy with  
> the current naming situation for the RDF-Based Semantics, and would  
> prefer to simply call the semantics and the document "OWL 2 Full  
> Semantics". This would at least lead to a consistent naming scheme  
> in the document.
>
> 2) Nary Datatypes:
> Recently, I had some discussion with Ivan on the semantics for the n- 
> ary stub. The problem is that simply following the way as it is  
> defined in the Direct Semantics is technically not possible for the  
> RDF-Based Semantics, and it would be a non-trivial task to extend  
> the basic framework of the RDF Semantics to support this (though  
> possible in principle).

out of curiosity: what causes this difficulty?

Cheers, Uli


> My first question here is: What is the status of the n-ary stub in  
> the Direct Semantics concerning normativity? Is it necessary for an  
> implementer of a conformant "OWL 2 DL entailment checker" to  
> support, for example, n-ary property restrictions, or n-ary datatype  
> complements? Dependent on the answer to this question, I will try to  
> come up with a solution (maybe with a little help from my friends :)).
>
> Best Regards,
> Michael
>
> --
> Dipl.-Inform. Michael Schneider
> Research Scientist, Dept. Information Process Engineering (IPE)
> Tel  : +49-721-9654-726
> Fax  : +49-721-9654-727
> Email: michael.schneider@fzi.de
> WWW  : http://www.fzi.de/michael.schneider
> = 
> ======================================================================
> FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik an der Universität Karlsruhe
> Haid-und-Neu-Str. 10-14, D-76131 Karlsruhe
> Tel.: +49-721-9654-0, Fax: +49-721-9654-959
> Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts, Az 14-0563.1, RP Karlsruhe
> Vorstand: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Rüdiger Dillmann, Dipl. Wi.-Ing. Michael  
> Flor,
> Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Wolffried Stucky, Prof. Dr. Rudi Studer
> Vorsitzender des Kuratoriums: Ministerialdirigent Günther Leßnerkraus
> = 
> ======================================================================
>
>

Received on Monday, 30 March 2009 10:06:08 UTC