W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-comments@w3.org > June 2008

Re: rif-rdf-owl: OWL WG review

From: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 14:29:17 +0200
Message-ID: <4843E79D.6010106@inf.unibz.it>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
CC: public-rif-comments@w3.org

Dear Jeremy, OWL working group,

This a response to your review of the RIF RDF and OWL compatibility
document [1].

> This is a review of
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-rif-rdf-owl-20080415/
> on behalf of the OWL WG.
> We have one change request, and two further comments.

> A)
> Please change the sentence just before section 3.1

> [[
> This paves the way towards combination with OWL 2, which is envisioned
> to allow punning in all its syntaxes.
> ]]

> and the sentence from

> [[
> It is currently expected that OWL 2 will not define a semantics for
> annotation and ontology properties; therefore, the below definition
> cannot be extended to the case of OWL 2.
> ]]

> with a less definitive statement such as:

> [[
> In this document, we are using OWL to refer to OWL1. While OWL2 is still
> in development it is unclear how RIF will interoperate with it. At the
> time of writing, we believe that with OWL2 the support for punning may
> be beneficial, and that there might be particular problems in using
> section
> ]]

The requested change will be implemented.

> B) On the editors note, at the end of section 1, we advise that RDF
> entailment is much less interesting than the others (simple, RDFS, D,
> OWL DL, OWL Full), and we would not expect opposition to RIF not
> supporting it.


> C) Several participants in our group were unconvinced by the use of the
> "http://www.w3.org/2007/rif"^^rif:iri and "literal string@en"^^rif:text
> and found the deviation from the well-established notation for the RDF
> symbols a potential source of confusion to readers of this document,
> most of whom will also be readers of other Semantic Web documents from
> the W3C, and might expect a certain uniformity of style. Most of those
> present at our meeting were sympathetic to this point of view, but we
> felt it inappropriate to make a stronger comment on a sylistic matter.

It has been decided to use Turtle-style shortcut syntax for IRIs in the
document; this should address some of your concerns. In addition, we
will add an explanation (see [3]) about the correspondence between plain
literals with language tags in RDF and constants in the symbol space
rif:text in the document; there was not enough support in the working
group for adding specific shortcut syntax for strings with language tags.

Best, Jos, on behalf of the RIF working group

Received on Monday, 2 June 2008 12:37:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:06:57 UTC