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