- From: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 13:58:06 +0100
- To: Matthew Pocock <matthew.pocock@ncl.ac.uk>
- Cc: public-owl-dev@w3.org
These are very useful comments/suggestions. Can you please document them using the issues list at <http://code.google.com/p/owl1-1/issues/ list> -- that will ensure that they are addressed by the new OWL WG. Thanks, Ian On 24 Jul 2007, at 20:44, Matthew Pocock wrote: > > Thanks to all who answered my question. The answer was that the > vocabulary is > the complete set of things that can possibly be said, not the > things that are > used in a particular ontology. So, deltaD contains all data values > possible, > and deltaI contains all individuals possible, and so on. > > There was no consensus about what the sub-set of the vocabulary > used by a > particular ontology is called e.g. the named classes that a particular > ontology uses, or all property expressions in the ontology. > > Perhaps the spec could include a sentence making this clear, for > those of us > who don't come to the document already steeped in DL lore? > > My next question/observation is that the interpretation table 3 > mentions both > named things (e.g. OWL:Thing) and un-named things (e.g. description > expressions) as having interpretations. The word 'class' here (as > in 'class > interpretation function') seems to be a different use of the word > to the rest > of the spec documents, where 'description' would be the right name. > Similarly, the object property interpretation function seems to be > over > object property expressions rather than what the rest of the spec > calls > object properties. > > My inner pedant finds this unfortunate. > > Matthew >
Received on Friday, 27 July 2007 12:58:12 UTC