Boris Motik wrote: > [snip] >> 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. > +1 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 -- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdfReceived on Tuesday, 9 September 2008 12:38:12 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:41:51 UTC