Re: LC responses 28, 48 & 58

Hi Peter

Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> 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.
> 

I agree. We can have our discussion on the side and, more seriously, be
careful when we review our documents to see that we are consistent, but
the response itself can go out without this paragraph.

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

+1

> 
> 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.
> 

I am not sure that is actually necessary. The text is sufficiently
general to stay as is in my view.

Ivan

> 
> Comments?
> 
> 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