- From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 09:48:56 +0000
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
I added an editors note to the shared abstract to remind us of this point. Ian On 8 Jan 2009, at 11:49, Ivan Herman wrote: > I do not think this warrants an LC comment (it is clearly > editorial), so > I put it here. If you think it is better to have at as an LC, I am > happy > to raise it there. > > The abstract of the Syntax document says: > > [[[ > OWL 2 extends the W3C OWL Web Ontology Language with a small but > useful > set of features that have been requested by users, for which effective > reasoning algorithms are now available, and that OWL tool > developers are > willing to support. The new features include extra syntactic sugar, > additional property and qualified cardinality constructors, extended > datatype support, simple metamodeling, and extended annotations. > ]]] > > I wonder whether it is o.k., in the final document, to have an > abstract > that defines OWL 2 v.a.v. OWL 1 this way. After all, the syntax > document > stands by itself, without any reference to OWL 1, because it > supersedes > OWL 1. For a new reader, who does not know OWL 1, this abstract is > therefore meaningless... This paragraph may be part of the status > section, for example. > > The same paragraph is copy pasted to all other documents, by the way. > > Ivan > > -- > > 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 Wednesday, 28 January 2009 09:49:50 UTC