- From: Christine Golbreich <cgolbrei@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 23:44:55 +0100
- To: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Cc: Rinke Hoekstra <hoekstra@uva.nl>, OWL 2 <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Done: renamed 'Introduction ' and moved the sentence to it. Christine 2009/3/19 Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>: > 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 >> ----------------------------------------------- >> >> > > -- Christine
Received on Thursday, 19 March 2009 22:45:35 UTC