- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 18:12:50 +0100
- To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Given limited time (according to my holiday calendar no time) I have tried to restrict my review to the relationship between the mapping rules and the other parts of our documents, particularly concerning the following issues: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#I5.2-Language-Compliance-Levels http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#I5.3-Semantic-Layering http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#I5.6-daml%3Aimports-as-magic-syntax http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#I5.14-Ontology-versioning using RDF/XML for instance data, use of bnodes (see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Dec/0117.html ) annotations My concern is that the totality of our specs define OWL DL as the image under the mapping rules of the abstract syntax, and OWL Lite as the image under the mapping rules of a subset of the abstract syntax. However in many cases our documents are misleading or just plain wrong in suggesting that the defn of OWL Lite is somewhat simpler, or neglecting to point out that examples are missing required portions to be in OWL Lite or OWL DL etc. The mapping rules I have used are found at: http://www-db.research.bell-labs.com/user/pfps/owl/semantics/mapping.html#4 and are part of a document dated 30th December (although you can't tell). Jeremy
Received on Tuesday, 31 December 2002 12:14:40 UTC