tiny editorial comment

I do not think this warrants an LC comment (it is clearly editorial), so
I put it here. If you think it is better to have at as an LC, I am happy
to raise it there.

The abstract of the Syntax document says:

[[[
OWL 2 extends the W3C OWL Web Ontology Language with a small but useful
set of features that have been requested by users, for which effective
reasoning algorithms are now available, and that OWL tool developers are
willing to support. The new features include extra syntactic sugar,
additional property and qualified cardinality constructors, extended
datatype support, simple metamodeling, and extended annotations.
]]]

I wonder whether it is o.k., in the final document, to have an abstract
that defines OWL 2 v.a.v. OWL 1 this way. After all, the syntax document
stands by itself, without any reference to OWL 1, because it supersedes
OWL 1. For a new reader, who does not know OWL 1, this abstract is
therefore meaningless... This paragraph may be part of the status
section, for example.

The same paragraph is copy pasted to all other documents, by the way.

Ivan

-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf