- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 08:20:39 -0400 (EDT)
- To: baojie@cs.rpi.edu
- Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
From: "Jie Bao" <baojie@cs.rpi.edu> Subject: [ACTION-179] Review RDF-Based Semantics. Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 07:07:41 -0400 > I finished my review comments on the document. The document is in a > very good shape. Most of my comments are minor, the one that may > require some efforts is on comprehension rules. I noticed many of > rules in section 4 are actually comprehension. Shall we move them > together with the existing comprehension rules in section 6? I agree that there are some comprehension rules in Section 4, but not that many. I pointed the ones that I found in my email review. The ones that I found are for propertyChain, AllDifferent, AllDisjointClasses, AllDisjointProperties, and negative property assertions. These all require the existence of a node that plays the part of OWL syntax. Do you think that there are any other comprehension rules? Peter F. Patel-Schneider Bell Labs Research
Received on Wednesday, 10 September 2008 12:30:34 UTC