- 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