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

RE: Revision on DL-Semantics [RE: Candidate public working drafts]

From: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 23:41:46 +0200
Message-ID: <0EF30CAA69519C4CB91D01481AEA06A0B98C17@judith.fzi.de>
To: "Boris Motik" <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Great!

Then I hereby declare my review of the DL-Semantics to be completed, and I
recommend to the WG to publish it as a new working draft. :-)

Cheers,
Michael

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Boris Motik [mailto:boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk]
>Sent: Friday, September 12, 2008 11:12 PM
>To: Michael Schneider; public-owl-wg@w3.org
>Subject: RE: Revision on DL-Semantics [RE: Candidate public working
>drafts]
>
>Hello,
>
>Honestly, I'd prefer not referring to V in the definition of
>interpretations. Clearly, each interpretation is over a vocabulary;
>however, the vocabulary is usually considered to be implicit. On the
>other hand, others have complained about this as well so,
>without further ado, I've added "and V" to the places in Section 2.5
>where I refer to models. I've done the same in Section 3.
>
>Regards,
>
>	 Boris
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Michael Schneider [mailto:schneid@fzi.de]
>> Sent: 12 September 2008 21:47
>> To: Boris Motik; public-owl-wg@w3.org
>> Subject: RE: Revision on DL-Semantics [RE: Candidate public working
>drafts]
>>
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: Boris Motik [mailto:boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk]
>> >Sent: Friday, September 12, 2008 10:22 PM
>> >To: Michael Schneider; public-owl-wg@w3.org
>> >Subject: RE: Revision on DL-Semantics [RE: Candidate public working
>> >drafts]
>> >
>> >Hello Michael,
>> >
>> >Thanks a lot for these comments! I've fixed everything apart from
>your
>> >third comment: an interpretation is indeed defined w.r.t D
>> >and V in Section 2.2.
>>
>> True. But my point was that the vocabulary "V" does not occur anymore
>in
>> Section 2./5/. In 2.5, at the beginning of the section, "V" is
>introduced,
>> but not used within the whole section. The reason, why I pointed to
>Section
>> 2.2 was that in the original definition of interpretations V was used
>(as
>> you confirmed above), but later in the document, when something is
>said
>> about interpretations, the vocabulary "V" is often omitted. In
>particular,
>> it is omitted in Section 2.5 (2.5. talks about interpretations several
>> times), although "V" is explicitly introduced there in the section's
>first
>> paragraph. So the question is, why is "V" introduced, but not referred
>to in
>> 2.5?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Michael
>>
>> >Regards,
>> >
>> >	Boris
>> >
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-
>> >request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Michael
>> >> Schneider
>> >> Sent: 12 September 2008 21:04
>> >> To: public-owl-wg@w3.org
>> >> Subject: Revision on DL-Semantics [RE: Candidate public working
>> >drafts]
>> >>
>> >> Hi!
>> >>
>> >> I did a revision on the DL Semantics. I still found a few trivial
>to
>> >minor
>> >> things. Apart from them, the document is ready to be (re-
>)published,
>> >IMO.
>> >>
>> >> Here are the points I found:
>> >>
>> >>   * Introduction, last paragraph: There are now also annotations on
>> >> annotations in OWL, so, for completeness, they should be mentioned
>in
>> >the
>> >> first sentence, too. (With other words: They also should be ignored
>by
>> >the
>> >> semantics, but not by the Semantics. :-)).
>> >>
>> >>   * Section 2.3, table headlines: Some table headlines end in "in
>> >Int",
>> >> others end in "in an Interpretation". Should be aligned.
>> >>
>> >>   * Section 2.5: The vocabulary "V" is introduced in the first
>> >paragraph,
>> >> but not used in the rest of the section. Originally, in section
>2.2,
>> >> Interpretations had been defined w.r.t. D /and/ V.
>> >>
>> >>   * Section 3, Theorem 1: "... be a datatype map such that NDT
>subset
>> >NDT',
>> >> NLT'(DT) = NLT(DT) and NFA(DT) = NFA'(DT)"..." The second condition
>> >has the
>> >> "'"-version on the LHS of the "=", the other conditions have it on
>the
>> >RHS.
>> >> Should be aligned.
>> >>
>> >> Cheers,
>> >> Michael
>> >>
>> >> >-----Original Message-----
>> >> >From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-
>> >request@w3.org]
>> >> >On Behalf Of Ian Horrocks
>> >> >Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008 5:15 PM
>> >> >To: W3C OWL Working Group
>> >> >Subject: Candidate public working drafts
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >The reviewing/revision process is well underway and even completed
>> >> >for many of the core documents (see [1]). Thanks to everyone for
>> >> >their efforts!
>> >> >
>> >> >At next week's teleconf we will be voting to publish these
>documents
>> >> >as public working drafts. All members of the WG are therefore
>> >> >cordially invited to inspect the documents and *speak now* if you
>see
>> >> >any problems.
>> >> >
>> >> >Regards,
>> >> >Ian
>> >> >
>> >> >[1] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Reviewing
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>


Received on Friday, 12 September 2008 21:42:27 UTC

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