LC2 Responses/JC5

From OWL
Revision as of 20:21, 17 May 2009 by IanHorrocks (Talk | contribs)

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

New Draft by Michael Schneider after feedback from TQ


To: jeremy@topquadrant.com
CC: public-owl-comments@w3.org
Subject: [LC response] To Jeremy Carroll

Dear Jeremy,

Thank you for your comment
     <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009May/0016.html>
on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts.

The Working Group is unwilling to use the RDF reification vocabulary because of the uncertainty of the intended meaning of RDF reification and the resulting strong negative views concerning its use.

The Working Group also feels that owl:subject, owl:predicate, and owl:object serve a different purpose than rdf:subject, rdf:predicate, and rdf:object. The terms are part of a new annotation framework in OWL 2, and the purpose of the terms is to provide a technical means for annotating certain kinds of OWL 2 axioms and other annotations in OWL 2. The usage of these terms is intended to be restricted to annotation tasks in OWL 2, only. Note also that the scope of an annotation in OWL 2 is an OWL 2 axiom or OWL 2 annotation, which will often be encoded by more than one RDF triple.

Nevertheless, the Working Group acknowledges that the currently used terms "owl:subject", "rdf:predicate", and "rdf:object" can easily be confused with the terms of the RDF reification vocabulary. The Working Group will therefore change the names of the terms in the following way:

  owl:subject   --> owl:annotatedSource
  owl:predicate --> owl:annotatedProperty
  owl:object    --> owl:annotatedTarget
  

The Working Group believes that this change will clarify the intended restricted usage of the terms and will also help to avoid confusion with the RDF reification vocabulary.

The Working Group considers this renaming of the terms to be a means to improve the clarity of the specification, and does not consider it as a change to the current design of OWL 2.

Please acknowledge receipt of this email to <mailto:public-owl-comments@w3.org> (replying to this email should suffice). In your acknowledgment please let us know whether or not you are satisfied with the working group's response to your comment.

Regards,
Peter F. Patel-Schneider and Michael Schneider
on behalf of the W3C OWL Working Group



CUT AND PASTE THE BODY OF THE MESSAGE (I.E. FROM "Dear" TO "Group") INTO THE BODY OF AN EMAIL MESSAGE. SET THE To:, CC:, AND Subject: LINES ACCORDINGLY.

PLEASE TRY TO REPLY IN A WAY THAT WILL ALLOW THREADING TO WORK APPROPRIATELY, I.E., SO THAT YOUR REPLY CONTINUES THE THREAD STARTED BY THE ORIGINAL COMMENT EMAIL



Original Draft by PFPS


To: jeremy@topquadrant.com
CC: public-owl-comments@w3.org
Subject: [LC response] To Jeremy Carroll

Dear Jeremy,

Thank you for your comment
     <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009May/0016.html>
on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts.

The Working Group feels that owl:subject, owl:predicate, and owl:object serve a different purpose than rdf:subject, rdf:predicate, and rdf:object. In particular, it is not the case that the subject of an owl:subject triple is an instance of rdf:Statement.

The Working Group is also unwilling to use the RDF reification vocabulary because of the uncertainty of the intended meaning of RDF reification and the resulting strong negative views concerning its use.

Therefore the Working Group will not be making any change to OWL 2 in response to this comment.

Please acknowledge receipt of this email to <mailto:public-owl-comments@w3.org> (replying to this email should suffice). In your acknowledgment please let us know whether or not you are satisfied with the working group's response to your comment.

Regards,
Peter F. Patel-Schneider
on behalf of the W3C OWL Working Group



CUT AND PASTE THE BODY OF THE MESSAGE (I.E. FROM "Dear" TO "Group") INTO THE BODY OF AN EMAIL MESSAGE. SET THE To:, CC:, AND Subject: LINES ACCORDINGLY.

PLEASE TRY TO REPLY IN A WAY THAT WILL ALLOW THREADING TO WORK APPROPRIATELY, I.E., SO THAT YOUR REPLY CONTINUES THE THREAD STARTED BY THE ORIGINAL COMMENT EMAIL



We did not reach consensus within TopQuadrant about the merits or otherwise of using reification for annotations.

However, we believe it is an error to duplicate the RDF reification vocabulary in the OWL namespace. The well-established convention is that one reuses the RDF vocabulary. The apparent motivation is because RDF reification is seen as semantically problematic. These issues are not addressed by using the same vocabulary in a different namespace.

We request that you use rdf:subject, rdf:predicate and rdf:object in place of owl:subject etc.

Jeremy Carroll, AC Rep. TopQuadrant, Inc