- From: Frank van Harmelen <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>
- Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 10:24:28 +0200
- To: "Lacy . Lee" <LLacy@drc.com>, public-webont-comments@w3.org
(this is a resend, my original posting of 17/06 doesn't seem to have made it into the archives) Dear Lacy, Thank you for your comments on the Overview document dated 21 April (at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webont-comments/2003Apr/0047.html) Below is our response. Our apologies for not responding to these sooner. > 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". All implemented. > 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? Your reading of our statement is indeed correct, suggesting to us that no change to the document is needed here. > 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. (We assume that in this comment and those that follow, you refer to section 2.2 of the OWL *Overview*, not Guide) We have added the annotation properties to the synopsis table in section 2.2. of the Overview document, plus a new section 3.9 to list them and point to the OWL Reference for details. > 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. Added. In the process, we also included owl:DatatypeProperty, which was also missing. > 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. Added. As a result, we've also rationalised the sections of the table in section 2.1, and added a new subsection (3.10) on versioning in OWL. Thank you again for your comments. Can you let us know (with a Cc to public-webont-comments@w3.org) whether you are satisfied with our answer? Frank van Harmelen. ----
Received on Friday, 20 June 2003 04:24:41 UTC