Re: Agenda/Logistics, Oct 2 telecon

Hi Peter

good to see we still disagree on B1 and B2 --- ahh same name, different 

I have a question on
C/ Semantic layering bug

   The change to allow optional ontology type triples breaks semantic
   layering at bit more.  (It was sort of broken in this area, but I think
   everything might have worked anyway, due to some fortuitous

   Fix:  1/ Extend OWL abstract consistency and entailment to also allow
            axioms and facts outside of ontologies.
         2/ Extend OWL satisfaction of an abstract ontology to require that
            the ontology be of type owl:Ontology.
         3/ Extend the mapping to triples to allow for axioms and facts
            outside of an ontology. 
         4/ Make the typing triple mandatory for unnamed ontologies.

   RESOLUTION:  Approve the above fix.  The only documents that should need
                changing are S&AS and Test.  I accept an action to make the
                changes to S&AS.

   NOTE:  This effectively replaces the change of 18 September that made
          rdf:type triples optional for unnamed ontologies, but gets the
          same effect by allowing axioms and facts outside of ontologies.

I wondered whether changing section 5 to require owl:Ontology to be non-empty 
might be simpler.

Also I find the above proposal a bit of a pig-in-a-poke, i.e. I don't pretend 
to understand it yet, and suspect I would need to see more fully developed 
text to decide whether I like it ot not .... 

We agree on (E) at least - well I am happy with the suggested tests (I have 
already added them) and that will do on that one.


Received on Wednesday, 1 October 2003 09:59:30 UTC