- From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 21:38:46 +0000
- To: Rinke Hoekstra <hoekstra@uva.nl>
- Cc: OWL 2 <public-owl-wg@w3.org>, Christine Golbreich <cgolbrei@gmail.com>
Good point. The abstract is supposed to summarise the content of the document, so it doesn't make sense to have anything in the abstract that can't be found elsewhere in the document. Presumably this information should also be in the introduction. Hang on -- there isn't an introduction, but an "Overview". Seems to me that it would be better and more consistent (with the other documents) to call this the Introduction. Ian On 18 Mar 2009, at 11:11, Rinke Hoekstra wrote: > Hi, > > The response to JC1a mentions that the NF&R document should be read > in conjunction with the OWL Use Cases and Requirements documents. > This is a good point, but I don't think it is adequately emphasised > in the current NF&R document: it is only briefly mentioned in the > abstract. > > -Rinke > > ----------------------------------------------- > Drs. Rinke Hoekstra > > Email: hoekstra@uva.nl Skype: rinkehoekstra > Phone: +31-20-5253497 > Web: http://www.leibnizcenter.org/users/rinke > Visit: Kloveniersburgwal 48, room ET1.09c > > Leibniz Center for Law, Faculty of Law > University of Amsterdam, PO Box 1030 > 1000 BA Amsterdam, The Netherlands > ----------------------------------------------- > >
Received on Thursday, 19 March 2009 21:39:27 UTC