Re: editorial tweak to OWL semantics doc

>Why shouldn't that go at the beginning of the RDFS-Compatible
>Model-Theoretic Semantics section?  It appears to me that OWL/DL, when
>written in N-triples,

Not N-triples; say RDF triples.

>  is also an RDF semantic extension.

Yes, OK. But use

which is the last-call frozen version, and check the wording there 
before you decide, as it has been tightened up somewhat. What is now 
correct, I think , is that OWL-full and OWL-DL are both semantic 
extensions but that the latter is syntactically restricted.

>Also, I'm confused as to the distinction between a collection of N-triples
>and an RDF graph.  It appears to me that the former is better specified
>than the latter and thus should be used in preference to it.

No, the RDF WG decided long ago that the graph syntax was normative 
and that N-triples is NOT normative and so should not be referred to 
as an official syntax for RDF. The official line is that any syntax 
for RDF must map to the 'abstract' graph syntax and that two 
expressions that map to the same graph are to be treated as 
syntactically indistinguishable.


IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola              			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32501           				(850)291 0667    cell	   for spam

Received on Monday, 16 December 2002 12:26:35 UTC