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

>    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


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