Re: SEM: current version of semantics document

From: Dan Connolly <>
Subject: Re: SEM: current version of semantics document
Date: 31 Oct 2002 13:41:53 -0600

> I think it's great to see this coming together...
> some specific questions about the status...
> On Thu, 2002-10-31 at 13:18, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> > 
> > The current version of the semantics document, which contains 
> >   1/ the abstract syntax, 
> >   2/ the direct model theory, 
> >   3/ the mapping from abstract syntax to n-triples, and 
> >   4/ the RDFS-compatible model theory,
> > is available as a multi-part document at 
> >
> This carries Pat's name (as well as Ian's an Franks) without
> qualification, but I'd like confirmation that he's seen (or
> otherwise agreed to) this version.

Good point:

Ian has expressed contentment.  The really new stuff is all in the
semantics area, which Frank has not had much input into.  I believe that
Pat had a commitment to look over this by last Friday.  As I hadn't heard
objections, I have gone ahead and put it in a more-public place.  I agree
that something has to happen here before the document becomes a working

By the way, can multi-part documents have different editors for different

> i.e. is it a candidate for discharging this action?
> "ACTION Peter Patel-Schneider/Pat Hayes: draft OWL semantics, including
> the "2 technical bits" [should also address issues 4.6, 5.9, 5.22]"
>  --
> I don't see 5.9 nor 5.22 in "1.2. Stances Taken on OWL Issues"

> but I understand from your message of
> 31 Oct 2002 13:40:49 -0500 that this draft *does*
> (propose to) address issue 5.9.

I will add

<li> This document has a new way of handling
     <a href="">issue 5.9</a> 
     by equating the properties involved.  There is a proposal to go back
     to the DAML+OIL method.</li>

to section 1.2.

> And this draft does address 5.22-owl:Class-still-needed
> to my satisfaction, in (among other places)
> "4.1. Definition of OWL Knowledge Bases in Triple Form"

5.22 (having to do with owl:Class) is closed, and the document, I believe,
reflects the closure stance.  The point is that OWL/DL requires owl:Class
to be different from rdfs:Class as not all OWL/DL classes can be RDFS
classes.  I propose that this bit of the action be WITHDRAWN (or, maybe,
the previous sentence is sufficient for satisfaction).

[[I note that the issues document has a bug in that 5.22 has an incorrect

> > and as a single-part document (suitable for printing, but some links go to 
> > the multi-part document) at 
> >
> > 
> > Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> > Bell Labs Research
> -- 
> Dan Connolly, W3C


Received on Thursday, 31 October 2002 15:13:02 UTC