- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 12:18:26 +0000
- To: herman.ter.horst@philips.com
- CC: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com, pfps@research.bell-labs.com, www-webont-wg@w3.org
Thanks, a few inline comments ... herman.ter.horst@philips.com wrote: > - The readability of the test cases (I looked at the triples versions > in section E) would improve if one very strictly followed way of writing > them would be used. Sometimes, in particular, a long list of conclusions > incorporates many premises. I am in favor of consistently dropping all > premises from the conclusions, in view of readability. > Can you point to specific examples? Often what happens is that things that from an OWL Full point of view are premises are required in the conclusion for syntactic reasons i.e. to make the conclusions OWL DL or OWL Lite. > - Section 4 speaks about "inferences" (two times). It would be > better to speak of entailments everywhere, since this is what is defined in > the semantics document. OK > > - Section 2.2:"the errata process over the tests is monotonic decreasing". > I can make an interpretation of this sentence, but believe that this > should be described somewhat more extensively. OK - I'll extend this note. > > - 6.1.3 typo: than should be then > > Herman ter Horst > Philips Research Jeremy
Received on Monday, 13 January 2003 07:18:51 UTC