LC Responses/JC2

From OWL
Revision as of 09:53, 5 March 2009 by IanHorrocks (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
Sorry this is a late comment.

Well two comments really, one a minor error, the other a worry.

Both concern: http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-owl2-test-20081202/#Syntactic_Conformance

section 2.1.1.


- iff

The iff in the penultimate sentence (in the example box) contradicts the first two sentences of the section.

[[ An XML document is an OWL 2 DL ontology document *iff* it validates ... ]]

--

- is

In the first few sentences the use of the word "is" is a little confusing. It seems that the defined terms are intended to have partial definitions, not complete definitions.

While I have some anxiety about this opening the door to private convention and interoperability failure, I think I will not press that point.

It may be worth having an introductory sentence

[[ In light of this, the terms "OWL 2 * ontology document" are only defined partially. ]]

A sentence or two of caution about too many other formats would perhaps be in order.


To: Jeremy Carroll <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/2009Feb/0008.html>
on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts.

Thank you for pointing out this problem. The Syntactic Conformance section of the Conformance and Test Cases document (see [1]) has been revised to be clearer in general and to rectify these problems in particular. The main definitions of the different kinds of ontology documents now refer explicitly to the RDF/XML syntax and are now complete definitions, e.g.:

"An OWL 2 DL ontology document is an OWL 2 Full ontology document that can be successfully parsed using the canonical parsing process as defined in the OWL 2 Syntax specification [OWL 2 Specification] and the procedure for mapping from RDF graphs to the structural specification described in the OWL 2 Mapping to RDF Graphs [OWL 2 Mapping to RDF Graphs] to produce an instance of the OWL 2 ontology class satisfying all of the restrictions described in Section 3 of the OWL 2 Syntax specification [OWL 2 Specification]."

Similarly, the example is now specific to the XML syntax. It says "An XML document is an OWL 2 DL ontology document iff [certain conditions are met]"; i.e., an XML document is an OWL 2 DL ontology document if said conditions are met, and it is not an OWL 2 DL ontology document if said conditions are not met.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Conformance_and_Test_Cases#Syntactic_Conformance

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,
Ian Horrocks
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