- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 04:18:29 -0500 (EST)
- To: jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com> Subject: OWL Lite/OWL DL/OWL Full defn in AS&S Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 17:53:21 +0000 > > > I am just trying to write the document conformance clauses in Test Cases. > > I was hoping to do something like: > > [[ > > An OWL Full document is an RDF/XML document [hyperlink1] > that conforms to the specification of OWL Full [hyperlink2] in AS&S. As far as I know, all RDF/XML documents are OWL Full documents, so there is no such specification in AS&S. > An OWL DL document is an OWL Full document that also > conforms to the specification of OWL DL [hyperlink3] in AS&S. > > > An OWL Lite document is an OWL DL document that also > conforms to the specification of OWL Lite [hyperlink4] in AS&S. These two now exist mapping.html#OWL_DL_RDF_graphs mapping.html#OWL_Lite_RDF_graphs However, you probably need to say something like An OWL DL document is an RDF/XML document [hyperlink1] such that the <a href="http://.../rdfs.html#RDF_graph_imports_closure">imports closure</a> [<cite><a href="ref-owlmt">OWL Semantics</a></cite>] of the <a href="[doesn't yet exist]">RDF graph</a> [<cite><a href="ref-rdfconcepts">RDF Concepts</a></cite>] resulting from the RDF parsing [<cite><a href="semantics.html#ref-rdfsyntax">RDF Syntax</a></cite>], of the document is an <a href="http://.../mapping.html#OWL_DL_RDF_graphs">OWL DL ontology in RDF graph form</a>. > ]] > > I have not found the anchors in the Jan 14th copy of AS&S. > I also note that there is more editorial tidying up, some specific points are: > - OWL/DL => OWL DL (or is OWL/DL right?) > - OWL/Lite => OWL Lite (ditto.) Yeah, yeah. I finally made this change. > Quite a few times AS&S defers to reference, which I don't think it should > be doing now that reference is informative. I only found the following: The normative exchange syntax for OWL is RDF/XML [<cite><a href="#ref-rdfsyntax">RDF Syntax</a></cite>]; the OWL Reference document [<cite><a href="#ref-ref">OWL Reference</a></cite>] shows how the RDF syntax is used in OWL. There are also a number of minor differences between OWL and DAML+OIL, including a number of changes to the names of the various constructs, as mentioned in Appendix A of the OWL Reference Description [<cite><a href="#ref-ref">OWL Reference</a></cite>]. The exchange syntax for OWL is RDF/XML [<cite><a href="semantics.html#ref-rdfsyntax">RDF Syntax</a></cite>], as specified in the OWL Reference Description [<cite><a href="semantics.html#ref-ref">OWL Reference</a></cite>]. Perhaps the third one should be changed. However, where then would the normative claim that the RDF exchange syntax is RDF/XML and that the only meaningful parts of that syntax is RDF Graphs be placed? > Jeremy peter
Received on Thursday, 16 January 2003 04:20:07 UTC