Re: differences between OWL 1 and OWL 2

I'm not sure at which place your text is intended to be put. ?

NF&R is supposed to be the normal place for differences between OWL1
and OWL 2 and Section 3 of [1] is aiming at dealing with close issues,
and if I don't mistake, several LC responses pointed to NF&R about
that (it's why we added this section)

Would you agree to merge that content with the existing of that section ?

[1] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/New_Features_and_Rationale#Other_Design_Choices_and_Rationale


2009/4/1 Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>:
> As far as I know, the changes from OWL 1 to OWL 2 are additions, with
> only a very few exceptions. �The differences could be described as
> follows:
>
>
> �OWL 2 is almost entirely compatible with OWL 1, both syntactically and
> �semantically.
>
> �The functional syntax for OWL 2 is organized differently than the
> �abstract syntax for OWL 1, but every construct in the OWL 1 abstract
> �syntax has a directly corresponding construct in the OWL 2 functional
> �syntax.
>
> �Just as in OWL 1, OWL 2 can handle all RDF graphs. �The vocabulary
> �that is given special meaning in OWL 2 includes the special vocabulary
> �of OWL 1. �However, the use of owl:DataRange is deprecated --
> �rdfs:Datatype should be used instead.
>
> �The direct semantics for OWL 2 is almost completely compatible with
> �the direct semantics for OWL 1. �The only difference is that
> �annotations are semantics-free in the direct semantics for OWL 2.
>
> �The RDF-based semantics for OWL 2 is completely compatible with the
> �RDF-based semantics for OWL 1. �Some of the details of this semantics
> �have changed, but the set of inferences are the same.
>
> �The treatment of importing in RDF documents has changed slightly in
> �OWL 2 if the RDF graphs are to be considered as OWL 2 DL ontologies.
> �In OWL 1, importing happened first, so the entire merged graph was
> �considered as one unit. �In OWL 2, the individual documents are
> �considered separately in most cases. �This means that there are some
> �groups of documents that could form an OWL 1 DL ontology but that do
> �not form OWL 2 DL ontologies.
>
>



-- 
Christine

Received on Wednesday, 1 April 2009 18:55:49 UTC