Re: Review: Syntax

Boris Motik wrote:
>> 2) The examples include a lot of discussion about the OWA and the lack
>> of UNA.  This seemed inappropriate for the Syntax doc, but I'm
>> interested in others' views.
> This document was supposed to serve as a reference and as such, I felt it important to explain intuitively the semantics of various
> constructs. OWA and UNA are probably two most prominent features of OWL that can be quite counterintuitive in practice. Therefore, I
> thought it would be good not only to say what follows from the constructs that depend on them, but also what doesn't. I really
> believe this will make the specification more accessible to people.


There are some remarks on UNA in the primer, too (maybe we should have
even more...), I fully agree with Boris that making this document more
readable in this respect is a good thing.



Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
PGP Key:

Received on Tuesday, 9 September 2008 12:38:12 UTC