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

Michael Schneider wrote:
> 
>> - there are some places where you refer to 'OWL 2 Full
>> Interpretation/Satisfaction/Entailement'). Strictly speaking, this may
>> not be 100% o.k., 
> 
> I called them this way, because you will find the analog names ("OWL Full XXX") in Section 5.3 ("OWL Full") of the SAS:
> 
>   <http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/rdfs.html#5.3>
>

True. But one of the discussion items we had in the past few days was
based on the recognition that there was some sloppiness there...


>> but I see the same issue arising in the Direct
>> Semantics which says, for example, that 'An interpretation I satisfies
>> an OWL 2 ontology...'. But I do not think it is really a source of major
>> misunderstandings.
> 
> I don't think that "misunderstandings" are the main problem here, since all these terms are well defined in the document. It's more about coherence of the naming scheme. This is, from a technical point of view, a null-issue, of course. But, as we have learnt from LC1, technical issues are not the only issues people outside the working group care about...
> 

You are right. It is a matter of coherence across our documents.

>> Maybe, in both cases, the introduction section should
>> make a clear statement saying something like
>>
>> [[[
>> in this document, the word semantics, interpretation, semantics, etc,
>> strictly refer to the RDF compatible semantics.  OWL 2 Ontologies can
>> have other semantics (ref to direct semantics) but this document does
>> not deal with that alternative except when explicitly mentioned.
>> ]]]
>>
>> (the same in the direct semantics with the obvious changes)
> 
> I was under the impression that it would be (part of) the purpose of the "Document Overview" to provide this sort of clarification. And, apart from this, saying that some syntactic expression (such as an OWL 2 ontology) can have different semantics is a tautology; there can always be infinitely many different semantics for any given syntax. My main concern with this proposed text is, however, that it doesn't really help in understanding the choice when the term "RDF-Based" is used, and when "OWL 2 Full". 
> 

The document overview does make some statements about this (in the next
release, that is), but making this extra statement in the semantics
document is a better place imho. We do make the point that ontologies
can have different semantics and that we should separate these two
things (syntax and semantics). The overview does make a reference to the
fact that, informally, OWL 2 Full often means a mix of the two, but that
is more the 'usage' rather than the precise definition. Within the
semantics document, however, you really and formally speak of one
semantics only, and this is worth emphasizing. Again, in my view...:-)

Ivan
-- 

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