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

Proposed response to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webont-comments/2003Apr/0047.html

From: Frank van Harmelen <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 21:43:34 +0200
To: Webont WG <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <307475075.1055454214@[192.168.0.176]>

Below my proposed response to
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webont-comments/2003Apr/0047.html

Notice that this has lead to the introduction of new (albeit
small) subsections in the Overview document (3.9 and 3.10), as well as
a reorganisation of the table of features of OWL Lite in section 2.1

The new version of the document is at
http://www.cs.vu.nl/~frankh/spool/OWLOverview.htm

Dan, can you update the WebOnt page so that this is where the
"editor's draft" now points to?

Frank.
   ----


Dear Lacy,

Thank you for your comments on the Overview document dated 21 April
(at 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webont-comments/2003Apr/0047.html)

Below is our response.
Our apologies for not responding to these sooner.

> Introduce acronym (RDF-S) after terms "RDF Schema" in first paragraph of
> abstract.
> Change "for" to "to" in first paragraph of section 1.1.
> Change "Owl" to "OWL" in first bullet in section 1.1.
> Change "glossary" to "a glossary" in second bullet of section 1.1.
> Section 3.5's bullet on minCardinality, change "has Offspring" to
> "hasOffspring".
> Section 3.6, first sentence, change "has contains" to "contains".
> Section 4's bullet on unionOf, change "OWL allows" to "OWL DL allows".
> Section 4's bullet on complex classes, change "OWL also" to "OWL DL also"
> and "OWL full" to "OWL Full".

All implemented.

> The statement "every RDF document is an OWL Full document" in section 1.3
> seems to that there are not any unique requirements associated with the OWL
> language.  Is there nothing that is required in valid RDF documents to make
> them compliant with the OWL specification?  If so, does that imply that all
> RDF is OWL Full?

Your reading of our statement is indeed correct,
suggesting to us that no change to the document is needed here.

> The annotation properties listed in section 7.1 of the OWL reference
> document don't appear in the list synopsis for OWL DL constructs in section
> 2.2 of the OWL Guide.

(We assume that in this comment and those that follow,
 you refer to section 2.2 of the OWL *Overview*, not Guide)
We have added the annotation properties to the synopsis table in
section 2.2. of the Overview document, plus a new section 3.9 to list
them and point to the OWL Reference for details.

> The owl:datarange class listed in section 6.2 of the OWL reference
> document didn't appear in the list synopsis for OWL DL constructs in
> section 2.2 of the OWL Guide.

Added.  In the process, we also included owl:DatatypeProperty, which was
also missing.

> The owl:versionInfo property, deprecatedClass class, and deprecatedProperty
> class listed in section 7.4 of the OWL reference document don't appear in
> the list synopsis for OWL Lite constructs in section 2.1 of the OWL Guide.

Added. As a result, we've also rationalised the sections of the table
in section 2.1, and added a new subsection (3.10) on versioning in OWL.

Thank you again for your comments.
Can you let us know (with a Cc to public-webont-comments@w3.org)
whether you are satisfied with our answer?

Frank van Harmelen.
    ----
Received on Thursday, 12 June 2003 15:45:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:01 GMT