Re: [LC response] To Guus Schreiber

2009/3/19 Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>:
> Dear Guus,
>
> Thank you for your comment
>     <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Jan/0084.html>
> on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts.
>
> OWL 2 is a successor of OWL and not only a successor of OWL DL. You are
> right, however, in pointing out that this is not made sufficiently clear in
> some documents, and that they sometimes seem to suggest that this is not the
> case.
>
> In order to address this problem the WG has added a Document Overview and
> has revised several of the other documents. The Document Overview provides a
> high level view of the design, making it clear that OWL 2 refers to the
> language as a whole, that an OWL 2 ontology can be equivalently seen as an
> RDF graph or as an abstract structure (an instance of the ontology class),
> and that ontologies can be interpreted using either the RDF-Based semantics
> or the Direct semantics (see our response to Frank van Harmelen [1] for more
> on this topic).
>
> Regarding the presentation of the material, the Structural Specification and
> Functional-Style Syntax document, which is the core reference for language
> features and usage, has been revised so that the features are illustrated
> using examples in both functional and triple based syntaxes. The New
> Features and Rationale document is not intended as a language reference, but
> documents the rationale for the new features of OWL 2. In order to keep the
> document short only the more compact functional syntax is provided. This
> document is, however, not yet at last call, and so is still subject to
> change.

FS was provided in the FPWD, but it is a more informal/friendly form of FS now.
Should I put a Hide/Show button to display the FS for each feature as optional?

> We are grateful for your supportive comments regarding some of the new
> features of OWL 2, and we hope that the changes we have made address your
> concerns about the presentation.
>
> Please acknowledge receipt of this email to
> <mailto:public-owl-comments@w3.org> (replying to this email should suffice).
> In your acknowledgment please let us know whether or not you are satisfied
> with the working group's response to your comment.
>
> Regards,
> Ian Horrocks
> on behalf of the W3C OWL Working Group
>
>
>
>



-- 
Christine

Received on Thursday, 19 March 2009 13:34:26 UTC