proposed reply to [Re: Some comments on OWL S&AS]

[Proposed reply to
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webont-comments/2003Apr/0044.html] 

Again, thank you for your comments.   

I do not propose to make any change here, as I feel that adding a new kind
of description does not help the exposition.

> Another suggestion to the Abstract Syntax of OWL Lite:
> 
> In the current spec,
> type ::= classID | restriction (in Lite)
> type ::= description (in DL )
> super ::= classID | restriction
> description ::= classID | restriction|...
> 
> Please consider the possibility:
> type ::= descriptionLite (in Lite)
> super ::= descriptionLite
> descriptionLite ::= classID | restriction
> 
> 
> Thanks for your concern!
> 
> Yuzhong Qu


Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Bell Labs Research
Lucent Technologies