W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > January 2003

Re: Abstract Syntax and Semantics: review comments / Correspondence between OWL DL and OWL Full

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 02 Jan 2003 10:55:42 -0600
To: herman.ter.horst@philips.com
Cc: "Peter F. "Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1041526542.19697.82.camel@dirk.dm93.org>

On Thu, 2003-01-02 at 09:18, herman.ter.horst@philips.com wrote:
[...]
> I looked further at this appendix.
> I believe that Appendix A.2 is too short (about half a page) to do 
> justice to the importance of its subject: Correspondence between 
> OWL DL and OWL Full.  This appendix should contain the technical 
> basis underlying, for example, the important claim underlying OWL
> which appears early in the Guide document:
> "Every valid OWL DL conclusion is a valid OWL Full conclusion."

Hmm... the way you write this suggests that Peter (and Pat and
the other editors) are obliged
to do everything that should be done to this document.
No, their obligation is really only to integrate specific
proposed text (or to explain why not) and to keep the
document consistent with group decisions. Anything else
we get from them is gravy, I think. And we've gotten a lot of
gravy in this document.

I agree that the correspondence proof stuff is very important.
I have a hope/dream of checking it by machine (using larch
or otter or some such).

If you think more text belongs there, feel free to contribute
more text.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 2 January 2003 11:55:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:56 GMT