Warning:
This wiki has been archived and is now read-only.
Response to IH
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