W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > April 2009

Re: Review "Changes Since December" document

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 08:25:06 +0200
Message-ID: <49E18942.6050001@w3.org>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
CC: sandro@w3.org, team-owl-chairs@w3.org, public-owl-wg@w3.org
Hi Peter,

just peeking into the document while on vacations... I think that one 
technical change is missing, namely the RDF version of property chains. 
This was as a response to one of Jeremy's LCC, and affected the RDF 
semantics, the mapping document, and the OWL RL profile.

Another note on the list of LCC-s which is also publicized by reference: 
I think we should either make it clear that answers that has been set as 
chased are considered to be closed by default. At first glance one sees 
a bunch of ACK_OK-s (with different colours:-) and the other cells which 
contains the chase times. We should note them as, say, OK BY TIMEOUT or 
something like that, and document the chasing mail on a different coloumn

I still saw one non-accepted entry there (45), what happened with that 
one? I think we did tell Marko that this is should be a member 
submission because is out of scope, I think that the table entry should 
be slightly different, too.


Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> From: "Michael Schneider" <schneid@fzi.de>
> Subject: Review "Changes Since December" document [RE: Where do we put the changelogs? ]
> Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 22:05:47 +0200
>> Sandro Hawke wrote:
>>> (2) Peter wrote an excellent all-OWL-2 changes document:
>>>        http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Changes_Since_December_2008
>>>     which everyone should please review to make sure it's not
>>>     missing anything important
>> A few points that I found:
>> * "Presentation/New Documents": I think it's better to write the words in
>> the titles of all our documents starting with capital letters. Most names
>> are of this form, but I found, for example, "OWL 2 direct semantics", "OWL 2
>> RDF-based semantics".
> I disagree.  I do not believe that capitalization should be so used in
> English.  Capitalization would be used in a reference to the document,
> not the semantics, and it is the semantics that is being so referenced
> in some places, not the document.  I realize that our documents are not
> consistent on this distinction.
>> * "Presentation/New Documents": "RDF-Based Semantics is a new normative
>> document [...]". It's not /that/ new: It became FPWD in round 4 (October),
>> and this is going to be round 6. I suggest to either remove the item, or say
>> something like: "has undergone significant editing in order to complete the
>> document for last call publication".
> Ooops.
> Now
> * [[RDF-Based Semantics]] has been completed and updated to reflect
>   changes to OWL 2.
>> * "Technical Changes". The 6th and 7th item both talk about
>> xsd:dateTimeStamp and (owl|xsd):dateTime. I think the two items should be
>> combined to tell a single story. Also, there is a typo in the 6th item:
>> "owl:dat[a]Time".
> These have been specifically separated so that "At Risk #3" has its own
> item.
>> Cheers,
>> Michael
> peter


Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf

Received on Sunday, 12 April 2009 06:27:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:41:58 UTC