From RIF
Dear RIF WG,
The current SWC document uses the terms 'OWL Full Semantics' and 'OWL
DL Semantics'. However, the OWL Working Group, in the recently
published OWL 2 Recommendation, has tried to clarify these notions by
separating syntax and semantics. In OWL 2, it is made clear that OWL 2
DL is a syntactic restriction and not, per se, a definition of a
particular semantics. For semantics, we refer to the 'OWL 2 Direct
Semantics' and 'OWL 2 RDF-Based Semantics', either of which could be
applied to an OWL 2 DL ontology.
We realise that this may come a bit too late in the process (and the
OWL WG also acknowledges the issue of accepted terminology, see the
thread at[1]). However, we wonder whether the RIF WG would still
consider updating the RDF and OWL Compatibility document to reflect
the terminology used in OWL 2 -- we believe that there would be a
benefit to RIF in terms of increased clarity and consistency with the
latest version of OWL.
Note that the current discussion on the Semantic Web Coordination Group
[2] that will provide generic URI-s for entailment regimes (and which
may be an alternative to the URI-s listed in 5.1.1. of the document)
will probably reflect the updated terminology.
Sincerely
On behalf of the OWL Working Group
Ian Horrocks, Chair
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-overview/
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-semweb-cg/2009Oct/0051.html
