Response to IH

From RIF
Revision as of 15:13, 10 November 2009 by Christian de Sainte Marie (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
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