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

Re: Language Overview Document editorial comments

From: Frank van Harmelen <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 10:24:28 +0200
To: "Lacy . Lee" <LLacy@drc.com>, public-webont-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <131436335.1056104668@[]>

(this is a resend, my original posting of 17/06 doesn't seem to have made it 
into the archives)

Dear Lacy,

Thank you for your comments on the Overview document dated 21 April

Below is our response.
Our apologies for not responding to these sooner.

> 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".

All implemented.

> 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?

Your reading of our statement is indeed correct,
suggesting to us that no change to the document is needed here.

> 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.

(We assume that in this comment and those that follow,
 you refer to section 2.2 of the OWL *Overview*, not Guide)
We have added the annotation properties to the synopsis table in
section 2.2. of the Overview document, plus a new section 3.9 to list
them and point to the OWL Reference for details.

> 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.

Added.  In the process, we also included owl:DatatypeProperty, which was
also missing.

> 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.

Added. As a result, we've also rationalised the sections of the table
in section 2.1, and added a new subsection (3.10) on versioning in OWL.

Thank you again for your comments.
Can you let us know (with a Cc to public-webont-comments@w3.org)
whether you are satisfied with our answer?

Frank van Harmelen.
Received on Friday, 20 June 2003 04:24:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:09:29 UTC