Re: rif-rdf-owl: OWL WG review

Jeremy Carroll wrote:
 > The particularly wording in this e-mail is intended for formal approval
 > by the OWL WG at its next telecon, 21st May. The points, but not the
 > wording, were agreed at the 7th May telecon. We will follow up, if any
 > corrections to the wording are made on the 21st.


I forgot to update you, at the meeting on the 21st, the decision was to 
approve A and C, but not B which was felt as more appropriately made as 
a personal comment

Jeremy


> 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 3.2.2.3
> 
> [[
> 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 3.2.2.3.
> ]]
> 
> 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.
> 
> ---
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jeremy Carroll, hopefully on behalf of OWL WG
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 29 May 2008 12:14:44 UTC