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

RE: ISSUE 5.2 Language Compliance Levels - proposed clarification

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 09:49:37 -0600
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Cc: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-id: <1043682576.29078.23.camel@dirk.dm93.org>

On Mon, 2003-01-27 at 08:40, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> What I do care about is that the documents we produced are consistent.
> Currently they are not.

Hmm... that would be more plain if I could look at
  * a test case/document, d
  * an excerpt from one of our specs that
	clearly showed P(d) for some P.
  * another excerpt from one of our specs
	that clearly showed not(P(d))

> I have said on a number of occassions before the f2f that the Guide, the
> Overview and the Reference are inconsistent [1], [2] , [3], [4] with the
> AS&S on this issue - in that they clearly show owl:intersectionOf as only in
> OWL DL, whereas AS&S shows it in OWL Lite.

That's a reasonably clear abstract of what I'd like to see,
but it suggests that our specs specify
	vocab: Dialect -> PowerSet(URI)

such that
	owl:intersectionOf \in vocab(OWL Lite)

would be well-defined. Guide/Overview/Reference
are sorta written that way, but we've organized
the documents so that they're informative; the
normative material is in AS&S, but it doesn't
define a vocab function like that (does it?).


Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Monday, 27 January 2003 10:50:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:51 UTC