LC Responses/MS7

From OWL
Revision as of 09:33, 5 March 2009 by IanHorrocks (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
It's late in the day, I know, but I thought we needed a power of two - so here's LC comment No. 64. ;-)

I just stumbled over this: In the Conformance document, the definition of an "OWL 2 DL Ontology Document" is as follows:

[[ An OWL 2 Full ontology document is an OWL 2 DL ontology document iff it can be successfully parsed using 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]. ]]

What I am missing: Does this already include the global constraints, such as "no cardinality restriction on transitive properties" or "tree of anonymous individual names", etc.? At least, I wasn't able to find this mentioned in the Mapping document.

For the remaining languages (syntactic conformance of EL, QL, RL), I think the situation is fine, because the definitions explicitly state that the result of the mapping process must adhere to the structural specification for the respective language, e.g.:

[[

   An OWL 2 DL ontology document 
   is an OWL 2 EL ontology document 
   iff the result of 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] 

--> is an OWL 2 EL ontology --> as defined in the OWL 2 Profiles specification [OWL 2 Profiles]. ]]

So I think, saying something along the lines of the following text should save the day for OWL 2 DL, either:

[[ An OWL 2 Full ontology document is an OWL 2 DL ontology document iff ... and if the result of this mapping process matches all the syntactic restrictions as defined in the OWL 2 Structural Specification [OWL 2 Specification]. ]]

I would consider this a pure bug fix (no design change), because it is clear that an OWL 2 DL ontology has to meet all the global restrictions.


To: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
CC: public-owl-comments@w3.org
Subject: [LC response] To Michael Schneider

Dear Michael,

Thank you for your comment
     <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Feb/0256.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 this error in particular -- it now explicitly refers to RDF/XML documents and says:

"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]."

Note that in response to other last call comments Section 3 of the OWL 2 Syntax specification is being revised to ensure that it lists all the restrictions that apply to OWL DL ontology structures.

[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