- From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 14:11:29 +0000
- To: Christine Golbreich <cgolbrei@gmail.com>
- Cc: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
I would vote for *not* adding such a button. NF&R is not a language reference, and the only reason for including an informal/friendly form of FS *at all* is so that readers can more easily understand the examples. Ian On 19 Mar 2009, at 13:33, Christine Golbreich wrote: > 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 14:12:10 UTC