- From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 13:58:56 +0000
- To: public-rif-comments@w3.org
Dear RIF WG, The current SWC document uses the terms 'OWL Full Semantics' and 'OWL DL Semantics'. However, the OWL Working Group, in the recently published OWL 2 Recommendation, has tried to clarify these notions by separating syntax and semantics. In OWL 2, it is made clear that OWL 2 DL is a syntactic restriction and not, per se, a definition of a particular semantics. For semantics, we refer to the 'OWL 2 Direct Semantics' and 'OWL 2 RDF-Based Semantics', either of which could be applied to an OWL 2 DL ontology. We realise that this may come a bit too late in the process (and the OWL WG also acknowledges the issue of accepted terminology, see the thread at[1]). However, we wonder whether the RIF WG would still consider updating the RDF and OWL Compatibility document to reflect the terminology used in OWL 2 -- we believe that there would be a benefit to RIF in terms of increased clarity and consistency with the latest version of OWL. Note that the current discussion on the Semantic Web Coordination Group [2] that will provide generic URI-s for entailment regimes (and which may be an alternative to the URI-s listed in 5.1.1. of the document) will probably reflect the updated terminology. Sincerely On behalf of the OWL Working Group Ian Horrocks, Chair [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-overview/ [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-semweb-cg/2009Oct/0051.html
Received on Monday, 2 November 2009 13:59:30 UTC