Re: S&AS review: general remarks

>> The S&AS document to be reviewed has no Section 4.3 on
>> RDF descriptions of OWL DL and OWL Lite.
>> I believe that if WebOnt decides to go to last call without this
>> section in the S&AS document, then the clear intention should be 
>> confirmed to add this section later to the document.
>> Strictly speaking, as I noted earlier, the S&AS document without
>> Section 4.3 is not consistent with the RDF Semantics spec,
>> which requires that:
>> >Specifications of such syntactically restricted semantic 
>> >extensions MUST include a specification of their syntactic 
>> >conditions which are sufficient to enable software to 
>> >distinguish unambiguously those RDF graphs to which the 
>> >extended semantic conditions apply. 
>I do not believe that this is necessary for OWL. 

>First, OWL Full includes
>all RDF graphs, so it is not a syntactically-restricted semantic


>Second, OWL DL does have a specification that I believe meets
>the requirements.

This has been extensively discussed.
The normative specification does not provide direct "syntactic
conditions" as mentioned above.
In order to decide whether an RDF graph is OWL DL or OWL Lite
by means of the normative specification, a software system
would need to use the mapping rules backwards, which would
be a very cumbersome process, if at all possible unambiguously.

>> Herman ter Horst

Received on Thursday, 27 March 2003 09:15:37 UTC