Dear Prof. Qu You said: [[ It seems to me that: 1) There is no PRECISE SYNTAX of OWL. 2) The XML encoding of an OWL ontology is based on RDF/XML Syntax as well as RDF schema for OWL (Appendix B). 3) Without the PRECISE SYNTAX of OWL, where does the *Final and Formally* stated normative definition of the language come from? ]] Conformance statements concerning which documents are in OWL Full, OWL DL, and OWL Lite can be found in the OWL Test Cases WD (not yet at last call). http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-test/#syntaxConformance [[ An OWL Full document is any RDF/XML document [RDF/XML Syntax]. An OWL DL document is an OWL Full document such that the imports closure [OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax] of the corresponding RDF graph [RDF Concepts] is an OWL DL ontology in RDF graph form. An OWL Lite document is an OWL Full document such that the imports closure [OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax] of the corresponding RDF graph [RDF Concepts] is an OWL Lite ontology in RDF graph form. ]] These statements defer to the RDF documents and to section 4.2 of S&AS, as well as the concept of imports closure defined in section 5.3 http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-owl-semantics-20030331/mapping.html#4.2 http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-owl-semantics-20030331/mapping.html#OWL_DL_RDF_graphs http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-owl-semantics-20030331/rdfs.html#RDF_graph_imports_closure When discussing your comment the WG also discussed the treatment of owl:foobar, which is specified, again in the conformance section of the Test WD: http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-test/#syntaxChecker [[ In addition, an OWL Syntax Checker SHOULD give a warning if the RDF graph [RDF Concepts] corresponding to the document uses any URI references starting with the prefix http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl# except those found in the [RDF Schema for OWL]. ]] Please can you reply to this message on the public-webont-comments@w3.org list, indicating whether we should be giving further consideration to your comment 1. The PRECISE SYNTAX of OWL from msg http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webont-comments/2003Apr/0024.html or whether these pointers have adequately clarified the situation. Thanks for your comments; there is still plenty of time for more! Jeremy CarrollReceived on Thursday, 24 April 2003 14:53:30 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:09:28 UTC