[RIF-OWL] Naming OWL semantic notions [was: Re: ISSUE: OWL-DL compatibility]

It was not a simple search and replace because we now have to
differentiate between terminology we use in the syntactic and
terminology we use in the semantic world.
The ontologies (and thus also combinations) we are concerned with are
OWL 2 DL and OWL 2 Full. The notions of satisfiability, model, and
entailment are OWL 2 Direct and OWL 2 RDF-Based.

Updating the introduction and sections 4 and 9 was straightforward,
except that one might dispute the names of the subsections 4.2.1 and
4.2.2 [they were "OWL Full" and "OWL DL"; I renamed them to "OWL
RDF-based semantics" and "OWL direct semantics", respectively]

In section 5 (input profiles) we have the URIs of the profiles, which I
changed to reflect the semantics of the imports of OWL ontologies.
However, the URIs are still to be finalized.

In section 6 (conformance) I currently speak about conformant
Core/BLD-OWL Direct and RDF-Based consumers and producers.  However, I
guess one might argue that consumed/produced are RDF-OWL DL/Full
combinations, and thus one should speak about conformant Core/BLD-OWL
DL/Full consumers and producers.
Opinions?


Best, Jos


> On a different but related note, Ian Horrocks posted a public comment
> that the new terminology for that-formerly-known-as-OWL-DL is "OWL
> Direct Semantics", and for that-formerly-known-as-OWL-Full is "OWL
> RDF-based Semantics" (see
> [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-comments/2009Nov/0001.html])
> 
> 
> I think a quick fix would be to replace "OWL Full" with "OWL RDF-based
> Semantics" and replace "OWL-DL" with "OWL Direct Semantics".  This isn't
> precisely correct in general, but I think based on the way we use the
> difference (between OWL Full and OWL DL), it works.
> 
> This doesn't change anything fundamental so its clearly just a bug fix,
> if you are willing to make the change.  Are you?
> 
> -Chris
>