- From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 14:51:08 +0000
- To: public-rif-comments@w3.org
- Cc: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
We noticed one minor discrepancy: the SWC document [1] still cites the CR versions of the OWL 2 documents. Presuming that this will be fixed in the published version of [1], we are fully satisfied with the way in which you have addressed our concerns -- thank you! Regards, Ian Horrocks On behalf of the OWL Working Group 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 >> >>
Received on Friday, 5 March 2010 14:51:37 UTC