- From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2009 18:20:06 +0000
- To: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Cc: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, Mike Smith <msmith@clarkparsia.com>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
I also removed the "Full" from the last paragraph of Profiles where it clearly wasn't necessary. Ian On 15 Mar 2009, at 18:14, Ian Horrocks wrote: > 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 18:20:43 UTC