W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > May 2009

Re: Status of OWL 2 Conformance

From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 10:43:25 -0400
Message-ID: <760bcb2a0905270743t33cc90aanc2e87139dc190d2c@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Cc: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, Peter Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, "OWL 1.1" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
You're asking me to compare wiki version 16385 (Dec 2) to the current
version (21970), right?
There are a lot of diffs, and I don't think I can check them all, sorry.

I do see that the problem I complained about before, that the
conformance document
gives no name to any class of ontology documents that satisfy *both*
syntactic conformance of any kind and datatype conformance, is still

The problem is compounded by the fact that datatype conformance is
only defined for tools, not for documents.

People exchanging ontology documents who want to establish some kind
of agreement around what's being transmitted will have to invent for
themselves a name for the kind of conformance they need - i.e.
syntactic conformance (pick one) plus the use of the OWL 2 datatype
map - and there's a serious risk they won't even think to do this at
all, and will get confused over exactly what constraints the exchanged
documents need to conform to.

This seems like a serious source of future headaches to me.


On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 10:57 AM, Ian Horrocks
<ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
> Dear Alan, Peter and Jonathan,
> As LC1 reviewers of Conformance can you please take a *very* quick look at
> the latest version and confirm that you are OK with any minor changes that
> may have occurred since the 1st Last Call and that, in your opinion, the
> document is "CR-ready".
> Thanks,
> Ian
Received on Wednesday, 27 May 2009 14:44:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:41:59 UTC