- From: Dave Matthews <matthews@greengenes.cit.cornell.edu>
- Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 21:12:16 -0400 (EDT)
- To: public-webont-comments@w3.org
Something got removed from this message as I sent it. The first line said which webpage has the problem I'm complaining about. The line was/is: "http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/ says:" Repeating, w w w . w 3 . o r g / T R / o w l - g u i d e - Dave > From: Dave Matthews <matthews@greengenes.cit.cornell.edu> > Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 16:27:47 -0400 (EDT) > To: public-webont-comments@w3.org > > > : Each of these sublanguages is an extension of its simpler predecessor, both > : in what can be legally expressed and in what can be validly concluded. The > : following set of relations hold. Their inverses do not. > : > : Every legal OWL Lite ontology is a legal OWL DL ontology. ... > > I believe you mean "converses". The converse is > > Every legal OWL DL ontology is a legal OWL Lite ontology. > > The inverse is > > Every legal OWL Lite ontology is not a legal OWL DL ontology. > > > OWL is an advanced logic. Not good to have a basic error like this in the > documentation. > A subset/superset relation might be more appropriate. > > - Dave
Received on Wednesday, 29 August 2007 01:12:22 UTC