RE: ISSUE 5.2 Language Compliance Levels - proposed clarification

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 18:52:05 +0100

Message-id: <BHEGLCKMOHGLGNOKPGHDGEAPCBAA.jjc@hpl.hp.com>

> 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?).

Your point is correct, there is no such simple mapping from a vocabulary to
a sublanguage.

Without the owl:intersectionOf blemish the difference between OWL Lite and
OWL DL can be largely motivated by the additional vocabulary. I think for
instance the guide would be harder to read and harder to write if it
correctly reflected AS&S on this point.

Since at the moment all our documents are informative "works in progress", I
don't believe that the higher status that we have agreed to give to AS&S,
when it is a recommendation, is particularly relevant to the discussion of
what the consensus opinion is.

I suspect that most of the WG understand Guide/Overview/Reference better
than AS&S.
Hence my belief that the majority position is that owl:intersectionOf is not
in OWL Lite.

(Again, I don't care - I would vote concur on the substantive issue).

Jeremy

Received on Monday, 27 January 2003 12:53:07 GMT

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