RE: Status of OWL 2 RDF-Based Semantics

>-----Original Message-----
>From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org]
>On Behalf Of Michael Schneider
>Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2009 8:34 PM
>To: Ian Horrocks; Ivan Herman; Peter Patel-Schneider; Zhe Wu
>Cc: OWL 1.1
>Subject: RE: Status of OWL 2 RDF-Based Semantics
>
>I am just finishing a very elaborate (about 4 weeks) audit of the RDF-
>Based
>Semantics, since I never had time for this in the past. I found a whole
>bunch of minor to trivial things, such as typos, wording inconsistencies
>between similar texts, wrong citations, and the like. Nothing critical,
>but
>all stuff that I would have posted, if I would have been an LC
>commenter.
>Well, that's the difference to the other documents, which have basically
>been content-complete and technically sound long before LC2 publication,
>and
>so had their time to get more mature.
>
>I am going to put my findings into the editor draft in the following
>week,
>and will report back when I am finished. None of the changes will block
>a
>transition into CR, though, so we can simply ignore my editing work and
>vote
>next Wednesday.

Earlier this day, I have finished this work. Lots of editorial cleanup, 
clarification and cosmetics, where I was unhappy with the formulation.
This was all minor, but there were also a handful of more interesting 
bits (though also no big things), which are all mentioned in the 
"Post-LC Changlog" at:

 
<http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/RDF-Based_Semantics#Appendix:_Post_Last-Cal
l_Changes_.28Informative.29>

In particular, maybe someone can have a look at the 
"optional owl:onProperties" (n-ary datatypes) stuff. 
There are several places in the document where this is 
mentioned now, here is one:

<http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/RDF-Based_Semantics#Semantic_Conditions_for
_Property_Restrictions>
[[
Implementations are not required to support the semantic conditions 
for owl:onProperties, but MAY support them in order to realize 
n-ary dataranges with arities = 2 
(see Section 7 of [OWL 2 Specification] for further information).
]]

I think this is fine, and in accordance with the rest of the OWL 2 spec, 
but maybe someone has a different opinion?

One last thing before CR publication will be that I will contact 
Ivan to update the figure in Section 1 a bit (cosmetics only) and 
I will put some describing text below it (I have been asked to do 
this by several people privately).

And, of course, spell checking, and the like.

Apart from this, before Proposed Recommendation, I will still have 
to go on working on the proof sketch for the correspondence theorem, 
which isn't quite finished yet (see Ednote in LCWD). However, note 
that the proof is purely informative, and there are no dependencies 
on it apart from the theorem (also informative) itself, so this 
cannot lead to any problem, I believe.

Best,
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
=======================================================================