ISSUE-121: REJECTED: Do we want/need an OWL 2 DL language, which is based on RDFS semantics?

RDFS-based OWL 2 DL

REJECTED: Do we want/need an OWL 2 DL language, which is based on RDFS semantics?

State:

CLOSED

Product:

Raised by:

Michael Schneider

Opened on:

2008-04-21

Description:

In OWL 1 there was, in addition to OWL DL and OWL Full, an OWL DL language which was based on RDFS semantics, see AS&S sec. 5.4 [1].

This language shared most of its semantic conditions with OWL Full. But it was different from OWL Full in that the different parts of the OWL universe (the class extensions of owl:Thing, owl:Class, owl:ObjectProperty, etc.) were demanded to be pairwise disjoint (see the table given in sec. 5.4).

The relationship between this RDFS-based OWL DL and the abstract syntax-based OWL DL (or perhaps better: the description logic-based OWL DL) was stated in Theorem 1 of sec. 5.4. In short, this theorem stated that exactly the same entailments "G1 |= G2" hold in both languages, *if* G1 and G2 are valid OWL DL ontologies in RDF graph form.

The WG has to decide whether to create such an RDFS-based OWL 2 DL language, or not.

[1] <http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/rdfs.html#5.4>

Related Actions Items:

No related actions

Related emails:

1. RE: ACTION-181: Review RDF-Based Semantics. (from schneid@fzi.de on 2008-09-09)
2. Re: Wrong action pointers in minutes (from ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk on 2008-07-01)
3. Wrong action pointers in minutes (from schneid@fzi.de on 2008-07-01)
4. Re: ISSUE-121 (RDFS-based OWL 2 DL): Do we want/need an OWL 2 DL language, which is based on RDFS semantics? (from ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk on 2008-06-17)
5. RE: ACTION-93 / ISSUE-63: Initiated work on OWL-1.1-Full semantics (from schneid@fzi.de on 2008-04-22)
6. Re: ISSUE-121 (RDFS-based OWL 2 DL): Do we want/need an OWL 2 DL language, which is based on RDFS semantics? (from alanruttenberg@gmail.com on 2008-04-21)
7. Re: ISSUE-121 (RDFS-based OWL 2 DL): Do we want/need an OWL 2 DL language, which is based on RDFS semantics? (from jjc@hpl.hp.com on 2008-04-21)
8. ISSUE-121 (RDFS-based OWL 2 DL): Do we want/need an OWL 2 DL language, which is based on RDFS semantics? (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2008-04-21)

Related notes:

Display change log