Language Overview Document editorial comments

Here are some minor editorial recommendations for the Overview document
http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-owl-features-20030331/


Minor grammatical/typographical suggestions:

Introduce acronym (RDF-S) after terms "RDF Schema" in first paragraph of
abstract.
Change "for" to "to" in first paragraph of section 1.1.
Change "Owl" to "OWL" in first bullet in section 1.1.
Change "glossary" to "a glossary" in second bullet of section 1.1.
Section 3.5's bullet on minCardinality, change "has Offspring" to
"hasOffspring".
Section 3.6, first sentence, change "has contains" to "contains".
Section 4's bullet on unionOf, change "OWL allows" to "OWL DL allows".
Section 4's bullet on complex classes, change "OWL also" to "OWL DL also"
and "OWL full" to "OWL Full".


Questions/Confusions/Comments:

The statement "every RDF document is an OWL Full document" in section 1.3
seems to that there are not any unique requirements associated with the OWL
language.  Is there nothing that is required in valid RDF documents to make
them compliant with the OWL specification?  If so, does that imply that all
RDF is OWL Full?

The annotation properties listed in section 7.1 of the OWL reference
document don't appear in the list synopsis for OWL DL constructs in section
2.2 of the OWL Guide.

The owl:datarange class listed in section 6.2 of the OWL reference document
didn't appear in the list synopsis for OWL DL constructs in section 2.2 of
the OWL Guide.

The owl:versionInfo property, deprecatedClass class, and deprecatedProperty
class listed in section 7.4 of the OWL reference document don't appear in
the list synopsis for OWL Lite constructs in section 2.1 of the OWL Guide.

Received on Monday, 21 April 2003 16:14:25 UTC