ISSUE-131

Single OWL-R profile

RESOLVED: We should unify OWL-R DL and OWL-R Full profiles

State:
CLOSED
Product:
Raised by:
Boris Motik
Opened on:
2008-06-24
Description:
Hello,

It might be beneficial to try and unify OWL-R DL and OWL-R Full into a single profile. The main benefit would be that we would not need owl:intendedProfile: the profile an ontology is in would be defined by the syntactic structure of the axioms in the ontology. Please note that this would not affect the rules of OWL-R -- these would stay exactly as they currently are.

Here are the proposed changes to the Profiles document:

- We would rework entire Section 4 to talk only about OWL-R, and not about OWL-R DL and OWL-R Full.

- We would rename Section 4.2 to "Profile Specification". There, we would use the structural specification to define the allowed structure of the language.

- We would add a general remark to the document, probably in the introduction, that each RDF graph falls into a particular profile if it can be parsed into a structural specification ontology according to the rules specified in the RDF Mapping document. Please note that this is not something that is specific to OWL-R: we need a definition of when an RDF graph constitutes a valid ontology in a particular fragment for the other fragments as well.

- We would delete Section 4.3.1.

- Section 4.3.2 would become Section 4.3 and we would call it "Reasoning in OWL-R and RDF Graphs using Rules". The contents of the section would remain the same.

Please let me know how you feel about this.

Regards,

	Boris
Related Actions Items:
No related actions
Related emails:
  1. RE: OWL 2 RL unification proposal: My comments (from boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk on 2008-09-03)
  2. OWL 2 RL unification proposal: My comments (from schneid@fzi.de on 2008-09-03)
  3. Re: ISSUE-130 / ACTION-194 Come up with a proposal for conformance (from ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk on 2008-09-02)
  4. RE: ISSUE-130 / ACTION-194 Come up with a proposal for conformance (from schneid@fzi.de on 2008-09-02)
  5. Re: Some editorial comments (Re: ISSUE-131: Preview of 'unification') (from bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk on 2008-08-26)
  6. Re: Some editorial comments (Re: ISSUE-131: Preview of 'unification') (from ivan@w3.org on 2008-08-26)
  7. Re: Some editorial comments (Re: ISSUE-131: Preview of 'unification') (from hoekstra@uva.nl on 2008-08-26)
  8. Re: Some editorial comments (Re: ISSUE-131: Preview of 'unification') (from ivan@w3.org on 2008-08-26)
  9. Re: Some editorial comments (Re: ISSUE-131: Preview of 'unification') (from hendler@cs.rpi.edu on 2008-08-25)
  10. Re: Some editorial comments (Re: ISSUE-131: Preview of 'unification') (from ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk on 2008-08-25)
  11. Some editorial comments (Re: ISSUE-131: Preview of 'unification') (from ivan@w3.org on 2008-08-25)
  12. ISSUE-131: Preview of 'unification' (from ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk on 2008-08-24)
  13. Re: ISSUE-131 (OWL R Unification): Fundamental understanding problems (from ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk on 2008-08-11)
  14. Re: ISSUE-131 (OWL R Unification): Fundamental understanding problems (from ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk on 2008-08-11)
  15. Re: ISSUE-131 (OWL R Unification): Fundamental understanding problems (from hendler@cs.rpi.edu on 2008-08-08)
  16. ISSUE-131 (OWL R Unification): Fundamental understanding problems (from schneid@fzi.de on 2008-08-08)
  17. Re: A possible way of going forward with OWL-R unification (ISSUE-131) (from ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk on 2008-07-19)
  18. Re: A possible way of going forward with OWL-R unification (ISSUE-131) (from ivan@w3.org on 2008-07-19)
  19. Re: A possible way of going forward with OWL-R unification (ISSUE-131) (from ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk on 2008-07-18)
  20. Re: A possible way of going forward with OWL-R unification (ISSUE-131) (from ivan@w3.org on 2008-07-18)
  21. Re: A possible way of going forward with OWL-R unification (ISSUE-131) (from ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk on 2008-07-18)
  22. Re: A possible way of going forward with OWL-R unification (ISSUE-131) (from ivan@w3.org on 2008-07-18)
  23. Re: A possible way of going forward with OWL-R unification (ISSUE-131) (from alan.wu@oracle.com on 2008-07-17)
  24. RE: A possible way of going forward with OWL-R unification (ISSUE-131) (from schneid@fzi.de on 2008-07-17)
  25. Re: A possible way of going forward with OWL-R unification (ISSUE-131) (from ivan@w3.org on 2008-07-17)
  26. Re: A possible way of going forward with OWL-R unification (ISSUE-131) (from bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk on 2008-07-17)
  27. Re: A possible way of going forward with OWL-R unification (ISSUE-131) (from bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk on 2008-07-17)
  28. Re: A possible way of going forward with OWL-R unification (ISSUE-131) (from pfps@research.bell-labs.com on 2008-07-17)
  29. Re: A possible way of going forward with OWL-R unification (ISSUE-131) (from ivan@w3.org on 2008-07-17)
  30. RE: A possible way of going forward with OWL-R unification (ISSUE-131) (from schneid@fzi.de on 2008-07-17)
  31. RE: A possible way of going forward with OWL-R unification (ISSUE-131) (from schneid@fzi.de on 2008-07-16)
  32. Re: A possible way of going forward with OWL-R unification (ISSUE-131) (from pfps@research.bell-labs.com on 2008-07-16)
  33. Re: A possible way of going forward with OWL-R unification (ISSUE-131) (from bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk on 2008-07-16)
  34. Re: A possible way of going forward with OWL-R unification (ISSUE-131) (from ivan@w3.org on 2008-07-16)
  35. Re: A possible way of going forward with OWL-R unification (ISSUE-131) (from pfps@research.bell-labs.com on 2008-07-16)
  36. Re: A possible way of going forward with OWL-R unification (ISSUE-131) (from alan.wu@oracle.com on 2008-07-16)
  37. Re: A possible way of going forward with OWL-R unification (ISSUE-131) (from pfps@research.bell-labs.com on 2008-07-16)
  38. Re: A possible way of going forward with OWL-R unification (ISSUE-131) (from pfps@research.bell-labs.com on 2008-07-16)
  39. Re: A possible way of going forward with OWL-R unification (ISSUE-131) (from ivan@w3.org on 2008-07-15)
  40. RE: A possible way of going forward with OWL-R unification (ISSUE-131) (from schneid@fzi.de on 2008-07-15)
  41. Re: A possible way of going forward with OWL-R unification (ISSUE-131) (from ivan@w3.org on 2008-07-14)
  42. RE: A possible way of going forward with OWL-R unification (ISSUE-131) (from schneid@fzi.de on 2008-07-14)
  43. Re: A possible way of going forward with OWL-R unification (ISSUE-131) (from bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk on 2008-07-14)
  44. Re: A possible way of going forward with OWL-R unification (ISSUE-131) (from ivan@w3.org on 2008-07-14)
  45. Re: A possible way of going forward with OWL-R unification (ISSUE-131) (from ivan@w3.org on 2008-07-14)
  46. RE: A possible way of going forward with OWL-R unification (ISSUE-131) (from boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk on 2008-07-13)
  47. Re: A possible way of going forward with OWL-R unification (ISSUE-131) (from ivan@w3.org on 2008-07-13)
  48. RE: A possible way of going forward with OWL-R unification (ISSUE-131) (from schneid@fzi.de on 2008-07-13)
  49. Re: A possible way of going forward with OWL-R unification (ISSUE-131) (from alan.wu@oracle.com on 2008-07-12)
  50. RE: A possible way of going forward with OWL-R unification (ISSUE-131) (from boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk on 2008-07-12)
  51. Re: A possible way of going forward with OWL-R unification (ISSUE-131) (from ivan@w3.org on 2008-07-12)
  52. RE: A possible way of going forward with OWL-R unification (ISSUE-131) (from boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk on 2008-07-11)
  53. Re: A possible way of going forward with OWL-R unification (ISSUE-131) (from ivan@w3.org on 2008-07-11)
  54. Re: A possible way of going forward with OWL-R unification (ISSUE-131) (from alanruttenberg@gmail.com on 2008-07-11)
  55. Re: A possible way of going forward with OWL-R unification (ISSUE-131) (from bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk on 2008-07-11)
  56. Re: A possible way of going forward with OWL-R unification (ISSUE-131) (from alanruttenberg@gmail.com on 2008-07-11)
  57. A possible way of going forward with OWL-R unification (ISSUE-131) (from boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk on 2008-07-10)
  58. Re: Do we loose anything? (discussion on ISSUE-131) (from ivan@w3.org on 2008-07-03)
  59. Re: Do we loose anything? (discussion on ISSUE-131) (from bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk on 2008-07-03)
  60. Do we loose anything? (discussion on ISSUE-131) (from ivan@w3.org on 2008-07-03)
  61. RE: intendedProfile (from boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk on 2008-06-26)
  62. owl:intendedProfile (from sandro@w3.org on 2008-06-24)
  63. ISSUE-131 (Single OWL-R profile): We should unify OWL-R DL and OWL-R Full profiles (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2008-06-24)

Related notes:

2008-06-30 13:55:28: Accepted per discussion with Ian 6/30/2008 [Alan Ruttenberg]

2008-09-03 19:36:26: Resolved per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Aug/0288.html
See http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2008-09-03#resolution_1
[Ian Horrocks]

Changelog:

2008-06-24 18:34:38: Created issue 'We should unify OWL-R DL and OWL-R Full profiles' nickname Single OWL-R profile owned by Boris Motik on product , description 'Hello, It might be beneficial to try and unify OWL-R DL and OWL-R Full into a single profile. The main benefit would be that we would not need owl:intendedProfile: the profile an ontology is in would be defined by the syntactic structure of the axioms in the ontology. Please note that this would not affect the rules of OWL-R -- these would stay exactly as they currently are. Here are the proposed changes to the Profiles document: - We would rework entire Section 4 to talk only about OWL-R, and not about OWL-R DL and OWL-R Full. - We would rename Section 4.2 to "Profile Specification". There, we would use the structural specification to define the allowed structure of the language. - We would add a general remark to the document, probably in the introduction, that each RDF graph falls into a particular profile if it can be parsed into a structural specification ontology according to the rules specified in the RDF Mapping document. Please note that this is not something that is specific to OWL-R: we need a definition of when an RDF graph constitutes a valid ontology in a particular fragment for the other fragments as well. - We would delete Section 4.3.1. - Section 4.3.2 would become Section 4.3 and we would call it "Reasoning in OWL-R and RDF Graphs using Rules". The contents of the section would remain the same. Please let me know how you feel about this. Regards, Boris ' non-public [Boris Motik]

2008-06-30 13:55:28: Issue dissociated from any product [Alan Ruttenberg]

2008-09-03 19:36:26: title changed to 'RESOLVED: We should unify OWL-R DL and OWL-R Full profiles' [Ian Horrocks]

2008-09-03 19:36:26: Issue dissociated from any product [Ian Horrocks]

2008-09-03 19:36:40: Issue dissociated from any product [Ian Horrocks]

2008-09-03 19:36:40: Status changed to 'closed' [Ian Horrocks]

Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, Chairs, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, Staff Contacts
Tracker, originally developed by Dean Jackson, is developed and maintained by the Systems Team <w3t-sys@w3.org>.
$Id: index.php,v 1.231 2009/11/16 15:00:54 dom Exp $