- From: Sean Bechhofer <seanb@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 10:40:10 +0100 (GMT Daylight Time)
- To: bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com
- Cc: public-webont-comments@w3.org
Brian Thanks for your comments [1]. [[ owlref-rdfcore-relationship-to-RDF RDFCore are concerned about the clarity in the OWL specifications of what RDF is legal OWL DL and OWL lite. This seems to be described only in S+AS which is a highly technical document and is likely to be inaccessible to many. On reviewing the reference document some significant restrictions were not apparent to the RDFCore reviewer. We cannot be confident, therefore, that other restrictions we would care about, have not been missed. RDFCore requests that the specifications be amended to include a description of necessary conditions for a RDF document to be in OWL DL and OWL Lite. This description should be as accurate as possible consistent with a goal of it being comprehensible to a majority of the community. Such a description may bring to light further issues. ]] An appendix has been added to the OWL Reference Doc (Appendix E: Rules of Thumb for OWL Ontologies [2]). This appendix is intended to address precisely this issue: which RDF graphs are legal OWL DL and OWL Lite. Of course this is not intended as an normative description -- the finer details are still contained within the S+AS. However, the appendix presents some general rules which, if followed, should ensure that graphs are legal DL/Lite. Rather than providing a formal characterisation of DL/Lite, one can view the philosophy of the rules as "if you follow these, you'll be ok.". Please respond, copying public-webont-comments@w3.org, as to whether you are satisfied with this response. Sean Bechhofer [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webont-comments/2003May/0053.html [2] http://www.daml.org/2002/06/webont/owl-ref-proposed#app-DLinRDF -- Sean Bechhofer seanb@cs.man.ac.uk http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~seanb
Received on Thursday, 19 June 2003 05:42:15 UTC