- From: Frank van Harmelen <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>
- Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 10:07:37 +0100
- To: "Smith, Michael K" <michael.smith@eds.com>, webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Guus/I had an action item to review the text on Species of OWL in the guide document. In general, I think it is fine. Of course it omits details, but it gives the right flavour. Below one comment and some small editorial suggestions. Comment: I think we should add a paragraph explaining the containment relation of these three languages, after the text describing OWL/Full. Something along the lines of: "Each of these languages is an extension of its simpler predecessor: Every legal OWL/Lite expression is a legal OWL/DL expression (but not vice versa) and similarly between OWL/DL and OWL/Full. Also, every valid OWL/Lite conclusion is a valid OWL/DL conclusion (but not vice versa), and again similarly between OWL/DL and OWL/Full." Editorial: - replace "complex" by "expressive" in two places - move the sentence on "When we introduce constructs..." to after the description of OWL/Full. - remove the bracketed remarks on class extension and intension. I'm not sure if this is used in precisely the right way here, and it will not help novice readers anyway. - start the 2nd sentence in the OWL/Full paragraph with "For example, ", to indicate we're not being exhaustive here. Frank. ---- (oops, only now do I see our action item applies to the synopsis document; oh well, will do in a minute)
Received on Thursday, 7 November 2002 04:07:48 UTC