- From: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
- Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 18:27:35 +0200
- To: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Dear all, I updated the RDF and OWL compatibility document [1] according to our discussion at the face-to-face, the reviewer comments, and a few small things I found. I did not yet finished the proofs of the theorems. But, in any case, people (particularly Christian) can review the current version. You may notice that I included a couple of new editor's notes. These notes mark dependencies with the DLP and DTB documents, wherever I anticipated a possible change in those documents before the RDF/OWL document will go to last call. Before publication, these notes will have to be revisited to make sure the dependencies are not broken. This is a rough list of the changes compared with the version discussed in the face-to-face: 1 the reference to SWRL was added to the introduction 2 reference to the shortcut syntax in the introduction 3 a new section 2, which describes the difference between RIF and RDF symbols, was added 4 OWL DL compatibility: the first example in section 4 was removed because it was nonsensical; the RIF rule set was inconsistent 5 the table of RIF-RDF symbol correspondence was moved from the introduction of RDF compatibility to the new section 2 6 the description of the organization of the documents near the end of the overview was improved 7 a note in section 4.1.1 about DL-safeness being "at-risk" was added 8 for the reference to OWL 2 I used the text suggested by the OWL working group 9 the embedding of D-entailment was removed 10 the notation for RIF rule sets in examples and definitions was corrected (there were several errors in quantifications with commas and parentheses) 11 DEFINITION => Definition (to make more coherent with BLD and FLD documents) 12 the section on required built-ins in the appendix was removed and the embeddings have been updated to use the built-ins defined in the DTD document 13 a formal definition of OWL DLP has been added in section 7.2.1 14 the concept of "considered datatypes" is now used, with a reference to the conformance clause section in BLD, in the definition of conforming datatype maps (section 3.1.2) as well as the embeddings of RDFS and OWL DL entailment (sections 7.1.5 and 7.2.3.2) Best, Jos [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/SWC -- Jos de Bruijn debruijn@inf.unibz.it +390471016224 http://www.debruijn.net/ ---------------------------------------------- An expert is a person who has made all the mistakes that can be made in a very narrow field. - Niels Bohr
Received on Monday, 2 June 2008 16:27:06 UTC