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

Re: draft responses for four JC LC comments

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 00:42:18 -0400
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <2360.1242189738@ubehebe>
> I've put together draft responses for four of the JC LC comments.
> See http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Responses_to_Last_Call_Comments for
> more information.

A good start.   Some thoughts...

re JC1 - I had to go back and re-read Jeremy's comment; I had missed
that he mentioned the namespace, where you only talk about the
namespace.  I guess I'd add something like: "The Working Group believes
this new language is the successor to OWL 1, and as such ought to use
the OWL name."

re JC2 - very nice

re JC4 - Jeremy refers to those documents already.  I guess I'd ask him
in what way these two sections...




fall short of what he wants, and how (specifically) he'd like them
changed.  (I don't think there's a New Features bit in Primer any more.)

re JC5 - I'm trying to understand why the range of owl:predicate needs
to be unrestricted.  If it were rdf:Statement, then, yes, there'd be an
entailed triple, but couldn't that triple actually be required/suggested
in the input.  If this is explained in some e-mail or minutes somewhere,
or even the spec, it should be linked from JC5.  (I expect this matter
will be an OWL 2 FAQ, because RDF reification has great associated
drama.  I'd love a nice written answer, if we do need to keep this.  If
the domain/range of RDF reification is really just broken [cf your
message tonight about it], we can fix that using the errata process
rather than shun RDF reification.)

     - Sandro
Received on Wednesday, 13 May 2009 04:42:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:12 UTC