Re: Review comments on OWL Semantics

> From: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
> Subject: Re: Review comments on OWL Semantics
> 
> 
> How about?
> 
>       I'll change when the RDF/XML Syntax Specification and the RDF
>       Semantics documents change.
> 
> as they both use N-triples, in preference to the RDF graph and in 
normative
> sections.
> 
> 
> peter
> 
> 

The RDF Semantics document does not need to change its notation in 
connection with
the remark of Jeremy and me about the OWL Semantics document.

The point is that according to the normative semantics of RDF, 
an RDF document stands, conceptually, for a set of triples 
(called an RDF graph).
For the normative, formal presentation of the semantic layering of OWL 
on RDF, it is most natural to define the connection of OWL with RDF 
graphs, 
and not with some notation for RDF graphs like N-triples.
When you use N-triples to describe the formal definition of OWL semantics, 

as you do in the current version of the OWL semantics document, you 
assume, 
actually, some complete, formal description of N-triples.
And this assumption is not needed.  You can describe the OWL semantic 
layering 
by using only the RDF semantics in terms of RDF graphs, without any 
assumption about notations of RDF graphs.

Herman

> 
> 
> From: herman.ter.horst@philips.com
> Subject: Re: Review comments on OWL Semantics
> Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 09:47:28 +0100
> 
> > Jeremy Carroll writes:
> > 
> > > N-triples
> > > =========
> > > I would strongly prefer that the mapping to RDF be expressed as a 
> > mapping 
> > > to the RDF abstract syntax (a graph) not to the non-preferred 
N-triples 
> > syntax.
> > 
> > I support this.  I made a remark to the same effect in my (partial) 
review 
> > of
> > the OWL semantics document at
> > 
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Nov/0043.html
> > 
> > 
> > Herman ter Horst