W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webont-comments@w3.org > April 2003

Re: Language Overview Document editorial comments

From: Deborah L. McGuinness <dlm@ksl.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 23:16:14 -0700
Message-ID: <3EA62FAD.5000401@ksl.stanford.edu>
To: "Lacy . Lee" <LLacy@drc.com>
CC: public-webont-comments@w3.org

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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
Received on Wednesday, 23 April 2003 02:16:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:43:27 GMT