Re: LC responses 28, 48 & 58

OK, then how about for LCCR 28
http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/FH2 
just remove the paragraph:

   Finally, it should be noted that, like OWL, OWL 2 separates syntax
   from semantics, and that OWL 2 Full, DL, QL, EL and RL are all refer
   to syntactic variants, while Direct and RDF-Based refer to the two
   possible semantics. It is therefore appropriate to refer to "the
   direct model-theoretic semantics for OWL 2", and also to "the
   RDF-Based semantics for OWL 2". Either of these semantics can be
   applied to OWL 2 DL, QL, EL and RL, and even large parts of OWL Full
   can be interpreted using the Direct semantics, although without any
   guarantee of decidability. As in OWL, the correspondence theorem
   states the correspondence between these two semantic accounts of the
   language.  

This gets rid of the contentious stuff, and appears to address all of
Frank's concerns.


This should also unblock 48.  LCCR 48
http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/SWD1 
should not need any changes.


LCCR 58 http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/MH1 mentions OWL 2
Full, but only generically.  The paragraph 

  In addition to the API implementation advantages you alluded to, there
  will also be an important benefit in allowing OWL structures (i.e.,
  the UML diagrams) to also capture most OWL Full ontologies and thus to
  act as generic representation for the OWL language and not just for
  OWL DL ontologies. We have introduced a new Document Overview and
  substantially revised the Structural Specification and
  Functional-Style Syntax document in order to make this clear. 

could be removed and still be responsive.


Comments?

peter

Received on Wednesday, 11 March 2009 20:43:56 UTC