- From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2009 18:14:43 +0000
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: Mike Smith <msmith@clarkparsia.com>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
I completely agree. I even went so far as to remove the sentence -- it can obviously be put back if deemed to be useful/necessary. Ian On 11 Mar 2009, at 15:30, Sandro Hawke wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 20:21, Peter F. Patel-Schneider >> <pfps@research.bell-labs.com> wrote: >> >>> This semantics for OWL 2 Ontologies is >>> sometimes called the =93OWL 2 Full=94 semantics and =93OWL 2 >>> Full=94 is a= >> lso >>> used to refer to the entire OWL 2 language, particularly when >>> expressed >>> as RDF graphs. >> >> I would like the sentence above (which was mostly present before >> Peter's edit) removed. I don't believe the first part is accurate -- >> nowhere in the documents is the RDF-based semantics referred to as >> the >> OWL 2 Full semantics. I believe the second part is contentious and >> provides a weak endorsement of the practice of referring to the >> "entire" OWL 2 language as OWL 2 Full. > > While I don't mind Peter's text, I support this change, with the > idea of > more-or-less deprecating the term "Full". > > The only other places it occurs in this document are in the Venn > diagram > (where i think it's good), and in the last paragraph of Profiles, > where > it could stay or go. > > -- Sandro > >
Received on Sunday, 15 March 2009 18:15:24 UTC