CR Transition Request

From OWL
Revision as of 03:31, 1 June 2009 by SandroHawke (Talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search
subject: Transition Request: OWL 2 Specification to Candidate Recommendation

1. Document titles

We propose to publish the following documents as Candidate Recommendation:

 shortname                 title
 ==========                =====
 owl2-syntax               OWL 2 Web Ontology Language: Structural 
                           Specification and Functional-Style Syntax
 owl2-mapping-to-rdf       OWL 2 Web Ontology Language: Mapping to RDF Graphs
 owl2-semantics            OWL 2 Web Ontology Language: Direct Semantics
 owl2-rdf-based-semantics  OWL 2 Web Ontology Language: RDF-Based Semantics
 owl2-test                 OWL 2 Web Ontology Language: Conformance
 owl2-profiles             OWL 2 Web Ontology Language: Profiles
 owl2-xml-serialization    OWL 2 Web Ontology Language: XML Serialization
 rdf-text [*]              rdf:PlainLiteral: A Datatype for RDF Plain Literals 

The estimated publication date is 9 or 11 June.  (We would like to
publish before the Semantic Technologies conference beginning 15
June.)  At the same time, several other pre-CR OWL documents will be
published, for a total of 14 documents.

The shortnames given above are what have been used to date, but we are
considering changing several to reflect changes in the content and
emphasis of the documents.  (For instance, we hope to change
"owl2-test" to "owl2-conformance", pending a WG decision and Domain
Lead approval.  If it does not delay publication, we'll try to do it
for this round.)

[*] The inclusion of rdf-text here is speculative, even optimistic.
The OWL WG has not yet resolved to publish this as Candidate
Recommendation, as it is still working to resolve a Last Call comment
from the SPARQL WG.  The document is co-published by the RIF-WG, which
also needs to formally approve this transition.  If all three groups,
and other involved commenters, have time to review and approve this
document before the transition call, then please consider it included
in this request.  If not, or if someone objects to this combined
request, we will take it up separately in the coming weeks.

2. Document Abstract and Status sections

For each document, the abstract begins with a standard part:

     The OWL 2 Web Ontology Language, informally OWL 2, is an ontology
     language for the Semantic Web with formally defined meaning. OWL
     2 ontologies provide classes, properties, individuals, and data
     values and are stored as Semantic Web documents. OWL 2 ontologies
     can be used along with information written in RDF, and OWL 2
     ontologies themselves are primarily exchanged as RDF
     documents. The OWL 2 Document Overview describes the overall
     state of OWL 2, and should be read before other OWL 2 documents.

This is followed by a short paragraph specific to the document in
question, namely:

     Structural Specification and Functional-Style Syntax
     The meaningful constructs provided by OWL 2 are defined in terms
     of their structure. As well, a functional-style syntax is defined
     for these constructs, with examples and informal
     descriptions. One can reason with OWL 2 ontologies under either
     the RDF-Based Semantics [OWL 2 RDF-Based Semantics] or the Direct
     Semantics [OWL 2 Direct Semantics]. If certain restrictions on
     OWL 2 ontologies are satisfied and the ontology is in OWL 2 DL,
     reasoning under the Direct Semantics can be implemented using
     techniques well known in the literature.

     Mapping to RDF Graphs
     This document defines the mapping of OWL 2 ontologies into RDF
     graphs, and vice versa.

     Direct Semantics
     This document provides the direct model-theoretic semantics for
     OWL 2, which is compatible with the description logic
     SROIQ. Furthermore, this document defines the most common
     inference problems for OWL 2.

     RDF-Based Semantics
     This document defines the RDF-compatible model-theoretic
     semantics of OWL 2.

     This document describes the conditions that OWL 2 tools must
     satisfy in order to be conformant with the language
     specification. It also presents a common format for OWL 2 test
     cases that both illustrate the features of the language and can
     be used for testing conformance.

     This document provides a specification of several profiles of OWL
     2 which can be more simply and/or efficiently implemented. In
     logic, profiles are often called fragments. Most profiles are
     defined by placing restrictions on the structure of OWL 2
     ontologies. These restrictions have been specified by modifying
     the productions of the functional-style syntax.

     XML Serialization
     This document specifies an XML serialization for OWL 2 that
     mirrors its structural specification. An XML schema defines this
     syntax and is available as a separate document, as well as being
     included here.

The Status sections are assembled automatically from maturity-specific
and working-group specific boilerplate, along with this information about
changes since the last publication:

The final product can be viewed as an editor's (publication preview)
draft.  A set of these drafts is linked from here:

3. Record of the decision to request the transition 

As noted above [*], the WG has not yet resolved to publish rdf-text as

4. Report of important changes to the document

See Summary of Changes:

(This text also appears in the SOTD section of each document.)

These are all of a minor nature and would not invalidate earlier reviews.

5. Evidence that the document satisfies group's requirements

The requirements have not changed since the previous transition.  None
of the many reviews have claimed that the documents fail to satisfy
the group's requirements.

6. Evidence that dependencies with other groups met

The specification has normative references to the following W3C
specifications that are not yet Proposed Recommendations:

- W3C XML Schema Definition Language (XSD) 1.1 Part 2: Datatypes
  currently a Candidate Recommendation.

The only group with a known dependency on OWL 2, at this time, is
RIF-WG, which is currently not yet at CR.

7. Evidence that the document has received wide review

See list of Last Call comments :

More than 90 comments were received in response to the publication of
the Last Call Working Drafts. These included reviews from other W3C
Working and Interest Groups, W3C member organizations, and numerous

8. Evidence that issues have been formally addressed


- OWL Working Group Issue List

- Responses to Last Call comments

The latter includes a summary of the issues raised during the two Last
Call rounds.

9. Objections

To date, there have been two objections, one from inside the Working
Group, and one from a former participant.

The first was made by Alan Ruttenberg, a co-chair of the group, on
behalf of his employer, Science Commons.  This objection concerns
whether certain primitive datatypes are considered in OWL 2 to have
disjoint or unified value spaces.  For example, is the floating point
number 1.0 supposed to be considered the same entity as the integer 1?
The Working Group first said "Yes", but then, in response to comments
during the first Last Call and based on implementation reports,
finally decided "No".  This decision was made after weeks of
discussion, including discussion at a face-to-face meeting.  It was
agreed that no consensus solution was possible, so finally a vote was
taken, with 12 organizations supporting disjointness, no abstentions,
and with Alan opposed.

More details about this issue and its resolution process can be found
here: (process summary)  (summary of objection)

The second objection came from Jeremy Carroll, who participated in
the Working Group representing Hewlett-Packard until he left for
TopQuadrant.  During both the first and second Last Call periods, he
submitted multiple lengthy comments on behalf of TopQuadrant.  Some of
his comments were positive and some were addressed to his satisfaction
by the working group. On a few matters he said he was not pleased but
would not object, and on one matter he stated he would object.

The issue on which he objects concerns the motivation for and/or
branding of OWL 2.  He states that many features of OWL 2 are
"under-motivated", and either they should be dropped, or "most, if not
all, of the new features of OWL2" should be rebranded as "Web-SROIQ".
(In the Description Logic research community, "SROIQ" identifies the
logic formalism that OWL 2 DL uses.)  The Working Group discussed the
matter in response to his comments during each Last Call period, but
found no serious merit to his arguments on this issue.

For more details see: