[SWC] ACTION6492: review changes in SWC

Jos,

I reviewed SWC, as per ACTION-492, and found no objection to publishing 
it as LC.

I have only two comments, one of them a tiny one:

- in the middle of the 5th paragraph in section 4, I had to read the 
following sentence several times before I could parse it:
"In the DL species, classes and properties are directly interpreted as 
subsets of and binary relations over the domain."

Wouldn't it be better rewritten, e.g.:
"In the DL species, classes and properties are directly interpreted as 
subsets of the doamin, and binary relations over the domain, respectively"?

I did not do the edit myself, lest I completely misunderstood the 
sentence :-)

- in section 5.2, the text says that "if ... the document must be 
rejected", "if ... the combination ... must be interpreted ..." (twice) 
and "if ... the combination ... may be interpreted ...". Should the 
document make reference to RFC 2119 for the use of "must" and "may"? On 
the other hand, there is no conformance clause...

Cheers,

Christian