- From: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
- Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 23:41:46 +0200
- To: "Boris Motik" <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <0EF30CAA69519C4CB91D01481AEA06A0B98C17@judith.fzi.de>
Great! Then I hereby declare my review of the DL-Semantics to be completed, and I recommend to the WG to publish it as a new working draft. :-) Cheers, Michael >-----Original Message----- >From: Boris Motik [mailto:boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk] >Sent: Friday, September 12, 2008 11:12 PM >To: Michael Schneider; public-owl-wg@w3.org >Subject: RE: Revision on DL-Semantics [RE: Candidate public working >drafts] > >Hello, > >Honestly, I'd prefer not referring to V in the definition of >interpretations. Clearly, each interpretation is over a vocabulary; >however, the vocabulary is usually considered to be implicit. On the >other hand, others have complained about this as well so, >without further ado, I've added "and V" to the places in Section 2.5 >where I refer to models. I've done the same in Section 3. > >Regards, > > Boris > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Michael Schneider [mailto:schneid@fzi.de] >> Sent: 12 September 2008 21:47 >> To: Boris Motik; public-owl-wg@w3.org >> Subject: 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 >> >> >> >> >> > >
Received on Friday, 12 September 2008 21:42:27 UTC