- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 16:19:47 -0500 (EST)
- To: herman.ter.horst@philips.com
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
From: herman.ter.horst@philips.com Subject: Re: AS & S Review: overview Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 16:12:11 +0100 > [...] > > > > Abstract, Introduction, Abstract Syntax: > > > hth> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jan/0204.html > > > pfps> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jan/0289.html > > > Remaining points: > > > - the abstract does not yet contain OWL Full > > OWL Full is now mentioned. > > > - the distinction between normative and informative could be > > > made more clear in the main parts of the document > > > Peter is not aware that this is needed, I leave this to the chairs > > > to comment. > > I believe that each informative part is prominently so labelled. > > In the version of 10 February, neither any of the five main sections, > nor any of its subsections, is prominently labeled informative, > so I conclude that all of Section 5 is normative. > This does not seem to be consistent with the sentence in the > introduction stating that for OWL DL ontologies, the direct model > theory is "authoritative" and the RDFS-compatible model is > "secondary". Hmm. I guess that Section 5.3, OWL DL, could be labelled as informative. If no one complains, I'll make this change. > > > Direct model theoretic semantics: > > > hth> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jan/0205.html > > > pfps> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jan/0290.html > > > Very small remaining point: > > > implies instead of the symbol -> should also be done consistently > > > in the remainder of the document. > > I can no longer find any uses of -> in the document. > > See two tables in Section 5.2 where they still appear: those on > domain/range and > clases/datatypes/properties Aaah, you mean → I'm not sure why you don't like this symbol, but I'll take it out. > > > Mapping to RDF graphs: > > > hth> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jan/0206.html > > > No reaction by Peter > > > Main point (see URL): > > > - more explanation before mapping table needed > > > > > > OWL DL as RDF graphs: > > > hth> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jan/0227.html > > > No reaction by Peter > > > Main points (see URL): > > > - reorder/rewrite material so that it becomes intelligible > > > - include OWL Lite > > > Jeremy also reviewed this part, agrees with these points, > > > jjc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jan/0332.html > > > and has a proposal for an alternative: > > > jjc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jan/0356.html > > I believe that Jeremy is going to propose new versions of these parts > of > > the document. > > What about the correspondence theorem in Section 5 and Appendix A? > You made updates to this appendix, while it depends on your version of > the mapping from abstract syntax to RDF. I think that the correspondence theorem and proof are still OK. They still disallow annotations and imports. When there is agreement on annotations and imports I'll update the theorem and proof. [...] peter
Received on Tuesday, 11 February 2003 16:20:00 UTC