suggestion for changes to OWL Reference

• From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
• Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 11:45:09 -0400 (EDT)
• To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
• Message-Id: <20030424.114509.129245157.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>

I suggest the following wording changes

Section 1.3:

An OWL ontology is encoded and written as an RDF graph ....
to
An OWL ontology is an RDF graph ....

This document (as does ...) ... triples.
to
This document ... triples (as does ...).

any syntactic RDF forms
to
syntactic RDF/XML forms

same prescribed meaning
to
same meaning

... same RDF graph ...
to
... same RDF triples ...


Section 1.4:

[add pointer to ``vocabulary extension'' from RDF Semantics]

Section 1.7

This schema defines the OWL language constructs in terms of RDF Schema
classes and properties. This schema provides the basis for the RDF/XML
syntax of OWL. 
to
This schema provides some information about the OWL vocabulary in a form
that can be understood by RDF Schema processors.

i.e.
to
i.e.,

Appendix A

[There is a superfluous ``@'' after owl:equivalentProperty.]

Received on Thursday, 24 April 2003 11:45:19 UTC