comments on handling comments

I'm including exerpts from a recent exchange on the comments mailing list
to illustrate some issues I see in handling comments.


[...]

> 1 - OWL is an extension of RDF(S) -- that is, all RDF and RDFS 
> documents are legal OWL Full documents and all OWL documents are 
> legal RDFS documents.  However, OWL extends the vocabulary of RDFS to 
> allow some more expressivity.  For example, in OWL you can say that a 
> property is required (owl:minCardinality of 1) or optional 
> (owl:minCardinality of 0) and other such things.

This is only a partial answer, and resulted in further queries.

In my opinion answers in the comments mailing list should be as complete as
possible. 

>    That said, OWL does have some special subsets that are identified 
> in our documents (OWL Lite, OWL DL and OWL Full) - two of which have 
> some special restrictions, but some nice properties for reasoning 
> systems. Not all RDFS documents are necesssarily in OWL Lite or OWL 
> Full.  Details can be foudn in our documents.

This is incorrect.  Only really a typo to be sure, namely using OWL Full or
OWL DL, but this still caused followup.

[...]


My suggestion is that there should be no response in the comments mailing
list without some review of the response.  The only exceptions I can see
would be 
1/ formulaic responses thanking the commenter
2/ responses pointing the commenter to a separate informal response
   elsewhere

peter

Received on Thursday, 3 April 2003 11:58:18 UTC