- From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2010 15:47:40 +0000
- To: public-rif-comments@w3.org
- Cc: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
Michael Schneider noticed several small editorial issues that should also be fixed if possible: 1) Chapter 4: In the whole chapter, the terms "direct semantics", "RDF-Based semantics", "structural specification", and "RDF semantics" are repeatedly written in lower case (as written in this sentence). In the OWL 2 documents, however, these terms are generally in upper case, as in "Direct Semantics"; see for example the OWL 2 Overview <http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-overview/>. I believe the RIF document should follow this practice. 2) Chapter 4, 4th paragraph, first sentence: This sentence talks about the RDF mapping, but misses a citation to our "Mapping to RDF" document. 3) Section 4.2: The titles of the subsections are given as "OWL RDF-Based Semantics" and "OWL Direct Semantics", i.e., the "2" of "OWL 2" is missing in both cases. I don't know whether this was intended or just typos. We should mention it in the report at least. 4) Section 4.2.1, first sentence: The sentence refers to the "OWL 2 Full vocabulary". Howerver, in the RDF-Based Semantics spec (Sec. 3.2) it is called the "OWL 2 RDF-Based Vocabulary". Btw, this term is also upper-cased in the OWL 2 document, while "vocabulary" is written lower-case in the RIF document. Regards, Ian Horrocks On behalf of the OWL Working Group On 5 Mar 2010, at 14:51, Ian Horrocks wrote: > 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 Sunday, 7 March 2010 15:48:09 UTC