The OWL Full/DL Gap in the Field.
Nicolas Matentzoglu, Bijan Parsia · 2014
language in the sense that it treats as well formed any legal RDF graph. In contrast, OWL 2 DL, and its sub profiles, exclude large classes of RDF graphs as malformed and thus meaningless. Many ontology documents on the web appear to fall under OWL Full. However, not all ways of being OWL Full are indicative of modelling intent. In this paper, we look at the prevalence of OWL 2 DL violations in a large corpus of ontologies gathered from the Web1. We present a new classification of violations and analysis of those that are safely repairable. We find that a high preponderance (69%) of violations are repairable and are, indeed, mainly “mere ” declaration failures. This suggests for example that declarations as a conformance criterion should be rethought.