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). 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
 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.
On behalf of the OWL Working Group
Ian Horrocks, Chair