Re: review of S&AS and 5.3

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Subject: review of S&AS and 5.3
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 19:42:05 +0300

> 
> 
> In the discussion of issue 5.3 we agreed that the following sentence was 
> unfortunate, having a plausible non-monotonic reading. 
> 
> "For such OWL ontologies the direct model theory is authoritative and the 
> RDFS-compatible model theory is secondary."
> http://www-db.research.bell-labs.com/user/pfps/owl/semantics/#1
> 
> 
> I believe Peter indicated he would change it a little. (e.g. delete in its 
> entireity would be acceptable to me, particularly bearing in mind the test 
> changes for I5.3, such as requiring consistency checkers to say which of the 
> two semantics they implement).
> 
> Jeremy
> 
> 

Done.

peter