- From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
- Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 08:03:58 -0500
- To: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Cc: OWL 2 <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
+1 (modulo fixing what Ivan brought up) On Mar 4, 2010, at 12:29 PM, Ian Horrocks wrote: > Dear OWL WG, > > Sorry to disturb your well earned repose, but we really should > respond to RIF's response to our comment about their use of OWL Full > Semantics' and 'OWL DL Semantics'. Everything now seems OK to me > and, unless I hear to the contrary, I will respond confirming that > we are satisfied. > > Regards, > Ian > > > > On 10 Dec 2009, at 10:29, Jos de Bruijn wrote: > >> Dear Ian, >> >> Thank you for bringing this naming issue to our attention. >> We have updated the naming in the wiki version of the document [1] >> accordingly. >> >> We have also updated the URIs of the import profiles in section >> 5.1.1 to >> those defined by the semantic web coordination group. >> >> >> Best, Jos >> >> [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/SWC >> [2] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/SWC#Conformance_Clauses >> >> Ian Horrocks wrote: >>> Dear RIF WG, >>> >>> The current SWC document uses the terms 'OWL Full Semantics' and >>> 'OWL DL >>> Semantics'. However, the OWL Working Group, in the recently >>> published >>> OWL 2 Recommendation, has tried to clarify these notions by >>> separating >>> syntax and semantics. In OWL 2, it is made clear that OWL 2 DL is a >>> syntactic restriction and not, per se, a definition of a particular >>> semantics. For semantics, we refer to the 'OWL 2 Direct Semantics' >>> and >>> 'OWL 2 RDF-Based Semantics', either of which could be applied to >>> an OWL >>> 2 DL ontology. >>> >>> We realise that this may come a bit too late in the process (and >>> the OWL >>> WG also acknowledges the issue of accepted terminology, see the >>> thread >>> at[1]). However, we wonder whether the RIF WG would still consider >>> updating the RDF and OWL Compatibility document to reflect the >>> terminology used in OWL 2 -- we believe that there would be a >>> benefit to >>> RIF in terms of increased clarity and consistency with the latest >>> version of OWL. >>> >>> Note that the current discussion on the Semantic Web Coordination >>> Group[2] that will provide generic URI-s for entailment regimes (and >>> which may be an alternative to the URI-s listed in 5.1.1. of the >>> document) will probably reflect the updated terminology. >>> >>> Sincerely >>> >>> On behalf of the OWL Working Group >>> >>> Ian Horrocks, Chair >>> >>> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-overview/ >>> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-semweb-cg/2009Oct/0051.html >>> >>> > > We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard - John F. Kennedy, Sept 12, 1962 Prof James Hendler http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~hendler Tetherless World Constellation Chair & Asst Dean of IT and Web Science Computer and Cognitive Science Depts Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hendler Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY 12180 @jahendler, twitter
Received on Friday, 5 March 2010 13:04:36 UTC