- From: Jerome Euzenat <Jerome.Euzenat@inrialpes.fr>
- Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 11:21:55 +0100
- To: "Smith, Michael K" <michael.smith@eds.com>, webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Me again, In my message (Re: Guide suitable for release) of 07/11/2002, I wrote: >Set Operators >[...] > >Moreover, the section begins with a "Since OWL class extensions are >sets", may be something should be reminded here. >I thought the following: "Sometimes we want to emphasize the >distinction between a class as an object and a class as a set >containing elements. We call the set of individuals that are members >of a class the extension of the class." taken from the "Basic >definitions" section can come here (it is not used in the Basic >definitions, but in the "Design for use part" which is >self-explanatory). >The word extension is used once with reference to the semantics. OK I was not clear. Bottom line: I thought of moving the paragraph from the beginning of "Basic defs" but it is not that easy because the word "extension" is used once before. >There is a lot of proper name (and even prices) in this example, it >does not look to be common W3C policy I also hope that the Texan wine is fictuitious. If not, W3C might have a nice lawsuit about the joke... Regards, -- Jérôme Euzenat __ / /\ INRIA Rhône-Alpes, _/ _ _ _ _ _ /_) | ` / ) | \ \ /_) 655, avenue de l'Europe, (___/___(_/_/ / /_(_________________ Montbonnot St Martin, / http://www.inrialpes.fr/exmo 38334 Saint-Ismier cedex, / Jerome.Euzenat@inrialpes.fr France____________________/ Jerome.Euzenat@free.fr
Received on Thursday, 7 November 2002 05:22:02 UTC