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

Re: LC reply drafted

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 11:18:13 +0100
Message-Id: <87B1427E-2264-4710-8985-CF996BD81538@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>, W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
To: Sebastian Rudolph <rudolph@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de>
On 13 May 2009, at 11:07, Sebastian Rudolph wrote:

> Bijan,
>
> if I understood you correctly, your main concern was the use of the  
> term "extension" (for several reasons).

Yep.

> Not being a native speake, I was not aware that the term is more a  
> technical and less an intuitively understandable one. I've come up  
> with a new version of the respective sentence which avoids the term  
> and paraphrases it. I've updated the response draft accordingly.

Great.

> On the other issue, I think saying that "classes essentially  
> represent sets of individuals" is nothing severely wrong, but  
> rather a simplification which is appropriate for the Primer.

Yep.

> When being confronted with the documents on semantics, the  
> interested reader will soon realise that the concrete set a class  
> represents varies with the choice of the interpretation. Honestly,  
> I see no way of nicely and primer-adequately expressing this  
> without potentially confusing newcomers.

One can just not say anything about sets and describe how classes are  
true of individuals.

As long as we don't pretend to be clarifying by introducing incorrect  
technical terminology that also has no helpful intuitive reading,  
then I don't care about the remaining details.

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Wednesday, 13 May 2009 10:14:23 UTC

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