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

Re: comments on OWL test cases

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 21:12:20 +0300
To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <200305132112.20546.jjc@hpl.hp.com>


Stilll replying to Pat
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003May/0166.html

> The English gloss on some of the tests (eg 
> 
http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/byFunction#function-FunctionalProperty
> refers to 'arcs', which is a term that is now deprecated by the RDF 
> WG.  Might this be better phrased? Example:

OLD text:
> If prop belongs to owl:FunctionalProperty , and subject denotes a 
> resource and has two outgoing prop arcs, then the object s of these 
> arcs  have the same denotation. Hence an arc originating in object1 
> can be copied to object2 .

NEW text:
> If prop belongs to owl:FunctionalProperty , and subject denotes a 
> resource which is the subject of two prop triples, then the object s 
> of these triples have the same denotation. Hence any assertion made 
> using one of them can be transferred to the other.

Accepted.

> In general, perform substitutions
> 'has FOO incoming prop arc' /'is the object of FOO prop triples'
> 'has FOO outgoing prop arc' /'is the subject of FOO prop triples'
accepted

> No other complaints. Full marks on layout, overall document 
> structure, etc., and extra credit for C.5.1 :-)

Ta

I've now replied to the comment in all (spread over three e-mails, sorry).

Jeremy
Received on Tuesday, 13 May 2003 15:12:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:00 GMT