- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 23:45:46 +0100
- To: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On 10 Apr 2009, at 23:41, Ian Horrocks wrote: > I agree with you that this has got rather confused. I think that the > problem is twofold: > > 1) I added the (redundant) note about conformant ontology documents > in the wrong place -- this could actually be part of the definition > of an OWL 2 DL ontology document (it is redundant because the > condition is already one of the conditions that an ontology must > satisfy in order to be an OWL 2 ontology as specified in Section 3 > of SS&FS). /me notes that this sort of thing is one of the problems with redundancy. Avoid it! :) Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Friday, 10 April 2009 22:46:27 UTC