Re: Language Overview Document editorial comments

Dear Lacy Lee,

Thanks very much for comments on the Overview document. We will consider 
them and get back to you.

Deborah McGuinness
OWL Overview co-author

Lacy . Lee wrote:

>Here are some minor editorial recommendations for the Overview document
>http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-owl-features-20030331/
>
>
>Minor grammatical/typographical suggestions:
>
>Introduce acronym (RDF-S) after terms "RDF Schema" in first paragraph of
>abstract.
>Change "for" to "to" in first paragraph of section 1.1.
>Change "Owl" to "OWL" in first bullet in section 1.1.
>Change "glossary" to "a glossary" in second bullet of section 1.1.
>Section 3.5's bullet on minCardinality, change "has Offspring" to
>"hasOffspring".
>Section 3.6, first sentence, change "has contains" to "contains".
>Section 4's bullet on unionOf, change "OWL allows" to "OWL DL allows".
>Section 4's bullet on complex classes, change "OWL also" to "OWL DL also"
>and "OWL full" to "OWL Full".
>
>
>Questions/Confusions/Comments:
>
>The statement "every RDF document is an OWL Full document" in section 1.3
>seems to that there are not any unique requirements associated with the OWL
>language.  Is there nothing that is required in valid RDF documents to make
>them compliant with the OWL specification?  If so, does that imply that all
>RDF is OWL Full?
>
>The annotation properties listed in section 7.1 of the OWL reference
>document don't appear in the list synopsis for OWL DL constructs in section
>2.2 of the OWL Guide.
>
>The owl:datarange class listed in section 6.2 of the OWL reference document
>didn't appear in the list synopsis for OWL DL constructs in section 2.2 of
>the OWL Guide.
>
>The owl:versionInfo property, deprecatedClass class, and deprecatedProperty
>class listed in section 7.4 of the OWL reference document don't appear in
>the list synopsis for OWL Lite constructs in section 2.1 of the OWL Guide.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>