W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > November 2002

Guide: Review of "species of OWL"

From: Frank van Harmelen <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 10:07:37 +0100
To: "Smith, Michael K" <michael.smith@eds.com>, webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1882864926.1036663657@swpc243.cs.vu.nl>

Guus/I had an action item to review the text on Species of OWL in the guide 
document.

In general, I think it is fine. Of course it omits details, but it gives the 
right flavour. Below one comment and some small editorial suggestions.

Comment:
I think we should add a paragraph explaining the containment relation of 
these three languages, after the text describing OWL/Full. Something along 
the lines of:

"Each of these languages is an extension of its simpler predecessor:
Every legal OWL/Lite expression is a legal OWL/DL expression (but not vice 
versa) and similarly between OWL/DL and OWL/Full. Also, every valid OWL/Lite 
conclusion is a valid OWL/DL conclusion (but not vice versa), and again 
similarly between OWL/DL and OWL/Full."

Editorial:
- replace "complex" by "expressive" in two places
- move the sentence on "When we introduce constructs..." to after the 
description of OWL/Full.
- remove the bracketed remarks on class extension and intension. I'm not sure 
if this is used in precisely the right way here, and it will not help novice 
readers anyway.
- start the 2nd sentence in the OWL/Full paragraph with "For example, ", to 
indicate we're not being exhaustive here.

Frank.
   ----
(oops, only now do I see our action item applies to the synopsis document;
 oh well, will do in a minute)
Received on Thursday, 7 November 2002 04:07:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:55 GMT