W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > September 2008

Re: [ACTION-179] Review RDF-Based Semantics.

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 08:20:39 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20080910.082039.207052593.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: baojie@cs.rpi.edu
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org

From: "Jie Bao" <baojie@cs.rpi.edu>
Subject: [ACTION-179] Review RDF-Based Semantics.
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 07:07:41 -0400

> I finished my review comments on the document. The document is in a
> very good shape. Most of my comments are minor, the one that may
> require some efforts is on comprehension rules. I noticed many of
> rules in section 4 are actually comprehension. Shall we move them
> together with the existing comprehension rules in section 6?

I agree that there are some comprehension rules in Section 4, but not
that many.  I pointed the ones that I found in my email review.

The ones that I found are for propertyChain, AllDifferent,
AllDisjointClasses, AllDisjointProperties, and negative property
assertions.  These all require the existence of a node that plays the
part of OWL syntax.  

Do you think that there are any other comprehension rules?

Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Bell Labs Research
Received on Wednesday, 10 September 2008 12:30:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:06 UTC