RE: S&AS review: general remarks

> >Second, OWL DL does have a specification that I believe meets
> >the requirements.
>
> This has been extensively discussed.
> The normative specification does not provide direct "syntactic
> conditions" as mentioned above.
> In order to decide whether an RDF graph is OWL DL or OWL Lite
> by means of the normative specification, a software system
> would need to use the mapping rules backwards, which would
> be a very cumbersome process, if at all possible unambiguously.
>
>

While I agree with Herman that some description other than the mapping rules
is needed in Proposed Rec, I do not see an in principle problem with going
to Last Call with this missing.

No one who approves the Last Call doc will then change to disapprove a PR
with such a description added.

Running the mapping rules backwards is ambiguous - but it does not matter.

The mapping rules are a many-to-many relationship that define equivalence
classes of abstract syntax ontolofies and RDF graphs such that the
equivalence classes are in a one-to-one mapping and every member of each
equivalence class means the same as every member of the related equivalence
class.

Jeremy