RE: Revision on DL-Semantics [RE: Candidate public working drafts]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Boris Motik [mailto:boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk]
>Sent: Friday, September 12, 2008 10:22 PM
>To: Michael Schneider; public-owl-wg@w3.org
>Subject: RE: Revision on DL-Semantics [RE: Candidate public working
>drafts]
>
>Hello Michael,
>
>Thanks a lot for these comments! I've fixed everything apart from your
>third comment: an interpretation is indeed defined w.r.t D
>and V in Section 2.2.

True. But my point was that the vocabulary "V" does not occur anymore in
Section 2./5/. In 2.5, at the beginning of the section, "V" is introduced,
but not used within the whole section. The reason, why I pointed to Section
2.2 was that in the original definition of interpretations V was used (as
you confirmed above), but later in the document, when something is said
about interpretations, the vocabulary "V" is often omitted. In particular,
it is omitted in Section 2.5 (2.5. talks about interpretations several
times), although "V" is explicitly introduced there in the section's first
paragraph. So the question is, why is "V" introduced, but not referred to in
2.5?

Cheers,
Michael

>Regards,
>
>	Boris
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-
>request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Michael
>> Schneider
>> Sent: 12 September 2008 21:04
>> To: public-owl-wg@w3.org
>> Subject: Revision on DL-Semantics [RE: Candidate public working
>drafts]
>>
>> Hi!
>>
>> I did a revision on the DL Semantics. I still found a few trivial to
>minor
>> things. Apart from them, the document is ready to be (re-)published,
>IMO.
>>
>> Here are the points I found:
>>
>>   * Introduction, last paragraph: There are now also annotations on
>> annotations in OWL, so, for completeness, they should be mentioned in
>the
>> first sentence, too. (With other words: They also should be ignored by
>the
>> semantics, but not by the Semantics. :-)).
>>
>>   * Section 2.3, table headlines: Some table headlines end in "in
>Int",
>> others end in "in an Interpretation". Should be aligned.
>>
>>   * Section 2.5: The vocabulary "V" is introduced in the first
>paragraph,
>> but not used in the rest of the section. Originally, in section 2.2,
>> Interpretations had been defined w.r.t. D /and/ V.
>>
>>   * Section 3, Theorem 1: "... be a datatype map such that NDT subset
>NDT',
>> NLT'(DT) = NLT(DT) and NFA(DT) = NFA'(DT)"..." The second condition
>has the
>> "'"-version on the LHS of the "=", the other conditions have it on the
>RHS.
>> Should be aligned.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Michael
>>
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-
>request@w3.org]
>> >On Behalf Of Ian Horrocks
>> >Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008 5:15 PM
>> >To: W3C OWL Working Group
>> >Subject: Candidate public working drafts
>> >
>> >
>> >The reviewing/revision process is well underway and even completed
>> >for many of the core documents (see [1]). Thanks to everyone for
>> >their efforts!
>> >
>> >At next week's teleconf we will be voting to publish these documents
>> >as public working drafts. All members of the WG are therefore
>> >cordially invited to inspect the documents and *speak now* if you see
>> >any problems.
>> >
>> >Regards,
>> >Ian
>> >
>> >[1] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Reviewing
>>
>>
>