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

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

From: Guus Schreiber <schreiber@cs.vu.nl>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 21:17:20 +0100
Message-ID: <3EE8DFD0.6040409@cs.vu.nl>
To: Frank van Harmelen <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>
CC: Webont WG <www-webont-wg@w3.org>

Frank,

All editorial. Please send it.

Guus


Frank van Harmelen wrote:

> 
> 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.
>    ----
> 

-- 
Free University Amsterdam, Computer Science
De Boelelaan 1081a, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Tel: +31 20 444 7739/7718
E-mail: schreiber@cs.vu.nl
Home page: http://www.cs.vu.nl/~guus/
Received on Thursday, 12 June 2003 16:17:11 GMT

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