Re: the relationships between OWL species

From: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Subject: RE: the relationships between OWL species (was Re: OWL, XML-RDF and Imports)
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 11:14:20 +0100

> 
> > > An RDF/XML document is an OWL-Full document if it obeys some rules, for
> > > example, to quote a quote in a recent mail from Dan C:
> > >
> > > "An OWL Full document is an RDF/XML document [RDF/XML Syntax], for which
> > > the corresponding RDF graph [RDF Concepts] does not use any URI
> > references
> > > starting with the prefix http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl# except
> > those found
> > > in the [RDF Schema for OWL]."
> > >  -- http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/snapshot#docConformance
> >
> > Hmm.  This appears to make it be the case that
> > 1/ not all RDF graphs are OWL Full documents and
> > 2/ not all OWL Full documents are OWL DL documents.
> > I believe that the working group has resolved that neither of these should
> > be the case.
> >
> 
> I agree that 1/ does not follow an explicit WG resolution - you seem to be
> asserting that it contradicts a WG resolution and you prefer permitting e.g.
> owl:foo in an OWL Full document.

I believe that there was a resolution to the effect that OWL Full
encompassed all RDF graphs.  At least I have spend quite a bit of time
trying very hard to get this to be the case.

> I don't much like that but could survive - is there a WG resolution you had
> in mind that I had gone against. Otherwise I would like to see some
> discussion on this before switching.
> 
> I don't understand 2/.  I believe that it has been the clear intent that OWL
> Full permits things that OWL DL does not (e.g. classes as instances). What
> is your suggestion?

I believe that it is the intent of the working group that all OWL DL
documents are OWL Full documents, which is what 2/ goes against. 

> Jeremy

peter

Received on Monday, 17 February 2003 06:02:15 UTC