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

Re: OWL Reference comment - RDF Schema for OWL

From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 14:01:50 +0100
To: Guus Schreiber <schreiber@cs.vu.nl>
Cc: public-webont-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <20030512140150.2849ffef.dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>

On Mon, 12 May 2003 14:19:59 +0200
Guus Schreiber <schreiber@cs.vu.nl> wrote:

> Dave,
> 
> Thanes for your comment. See responses in-line.
> 
> Dave Beckett wrote:
> 
> >   OWL Web Ontology Language Reference
> >   W3C Working Draft 31 March 2003
> > 
> >   Appendix B. RDF Schema of OWL (Normative)
> >   http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-owl-ref-20030331/#appB
> > 
> > The RDF schema for OWL appears in a Normative appendix of the
> > Informative OWL Reference
> 
> Appendix B is not normative. Te label "(normative)" in the Appendix 
> title is an update error. It has been corrected in the editor's drafts [1].
> 
> Note: the editor's draft is an unofficial version maintained by the 
> editors to keep track of editorial changes during LC.

So that means there is no normative description in machine readable form
of the OWL vocabulary, in OWL, as written down in RDF/XML.  Is
all the OWL vocabulary expected to be built-in application knowledge?
What is the purpose of this section?  It would benefit from an explanation.

The location of this work in the OWL reference, not S&AS tends to
suggest it is not "part" of OWL since OWL Reference does not define OWL. 

> > 
> > Can you have a normative part of an informative document?  It might
> > be that it would be better to describe more fully the status of this
> > appendix content.
> > 
> > Please also include the URI of the RDF/XML that this appendix
> > corresponds to or may be found, if there is one so that it may be
> > used directly -- for example, in testing.  At present, you have to
> > cut and paste the HTML.
> > 
> 
> We added a link to such an document in the editor's draft.
> See: http://www.daml.org/2002/06/webont/owl

The new reference in AppB of [1] is appreciated.
(Although W3C style probably suggests you give the "http://" part of the URL also)

> 
> 
> > (This is unrelated to the question of the bits found behind when
> > dereferencing some XML Namespace URI - I just ask that the URL of the
> > this content be made available. )
> > 
> > Thanks
> > 
> > Dave
> 
> Please let us know whether this response is satisfactory.
> 
> Thanks, Guus
> 
> [1] http://www.daml.org/2002/06/webont/owl-ref-proposed

I would like to get a further explanation of the purpose of this schema and section
before I consider this comment addressed.  If you could propose an explanation,
that may help me.

Dave
Received on Monday, 12 May 2003 09:03:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:43:28 GMT