ISSUE-15: Proposed Phase 2 Requirement: RIF must cover OWL [NOT CP]

Proposed Phase 2 Requirement: RIF must cover OWL [NOT CP]

OWL/RDF Compatibility
Raised by:
Deborah Nichols
Opened on:
Raised at: F2F3 Posted to Issues by Deborah Nichols

Proposed Phase 2 Requirement: RIF must cover OWL [F2F3]

See the CSF topic \"Consistency with W3C specifications\" on the wiki:

1. Phase 1 incorporated a Requirement to support OWL KBs as data (Req.
4.1.8, \"RIF must cover OWL knowledge bases as data where compatible with Phase
1 semantics.\").
2. Due to limitations on RIF Phase 1 semantics, F2F3 postponed consideration
of full coverage of OWL till Phase 2.
3. There are still open questions about what \"RIF covers* a language\" means
and what it commits the RIF to with respect to OWL. See topics raised in the
F2F3 discussion transcript:
4. Statements of this issue so far have not stated which of the three dialects
of OWL are to be covered.
5. The RIF WG Charter (3.2) Phase 2 Scope commits RIF to extensions to the
language, including \"Various fragments of OWL.\" It is left open for the WG to
determine which extensions potentially best serve users.

for \"cover\"

[This was item 4.b.9 in:]
Related Actions Items:
No related actions
Related emails:
  1. Minutes from April 15, 2008, telecon (from on 2008-04-18)

Related notes:

It is possible that \"parts\" of OWL will be \"covered\" by RIF Phase I. THe WG
must make this determination by consensus, however it does not make sense to
think too hard about this until the phase I semantics is a bit more clear.

22 Aug 2006, 00:00:00

Closed by WG resolution at the 4/15/2008 Telecon. This issue is addressed by the OWL+RDF document.

Christopher Welty, 16 Apr 2008, 02:49:45

Display change log ATOM feed

Chair, Staff Contact
Tracker: documentation, (configuration for this group), originally developed by Dean Jackson, is developed and maintained by the Systems Team <>.
$Id: 15.html,v 1.1 2013-02-08 09:09:33 vivien Exp $