RE: LC responses 28, 48 & 58

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider [mailto:pfps@research.bell-labs.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 9:45 PM
>To: Michael Schneider
>Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
>Subject: 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, 

I agree to drop this text.

>and appears to address all of Frank's concerns.

(Hopefully, but I cannot answer this.)

Without the paragraph above, I have no objection to LCCR 28 anymore.
 
>This should also unblock 48.  LCCR 48
>http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/SWD1
>should not need any changes.

Yes, this unblocks LCCR 48, since LCCR 48 does not contain the text, 
but refers to the particular paragraph only indirectly by linking 
to the answer for LCCR 28. 

>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 had already a mail on this:

  <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Mar/0274.html>

>Comments?
>
>peter

Thanks,
Michael

--
Dipl.-Inform. Michael Schneider
Research Scientist, Dept. Information Process Engineering (IPE)
Tel  : +49-721-9654-726
Fax  : +49-721-9654-727
Email: michael.schneider@fzi.de
WWW  : http://www.fzi.de/michael.schneider
=======================================================================
FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik an der Universität Karlsruhe
Haid-und-Neu-Str. 10-14, D-76131 Karlsruhe
Tel.: +49-721-9654-0, Fax: +49-721-9654-959
Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts, Az 14-0563.1, RP Karlsruhe
Vorstand: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Rüdiger Dillmann, Dipl. Wi.-Ing. Michael Flor,
Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Wolffried Stucky, Prof. Dr. Rudi Studer
Vorsitzender des Kuratoriums: Ministerialdirigent Günther Leßnerkraus
=======================================================================