W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > January 2009

Re: tiny editorial comment

From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 09:48:56 +0000
Message-Id: <BB34F3E0-AEAF-468C-A815-720B4EF0865A@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Cc: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>

I added an editors note to the shared abstract to remind us of this  
point.

Ian


On 8 Jan 2009, at 11:49, Ivan Herman wrote:

> 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
Received on Wednesday, 28 January 2009 09:49:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 28 January 2009 09:49:51 GMT