- From: <herman.ter.horst@philips.com>
- Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 14:04:25 +0100
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com, www-webont-wg@w3.org
Received on Monday, 13 January 2003 08:06:28 UTC
> > - The readability of the test cases (I looked at the triples versions > > in section E) would improve if one very strictly followed way of writing > > them would be used. Sometimes, in particular, a long list of conclusions > > incorporates many premises. I am in favor of consistently dropping all > > premises from the conclusions, in view of readability. > > > > > Can you point to specific examples? > Often what happens is that things that from an OWL Full point of view are > premises are required in the conclusion for syntactic reasons i.e. to make > the conclusions OWL DL or OWL Lite. - The third test in Section E.1.2 is labeled Full and contains both premises in the conclusions - The first test in E.1.7 (Lite) contains two conclusions, the second of which is also among the premises. However, this test does not repeat from the premises that first:c is a class. - The cardinality tests in Section E.1.8 contain long lists of premises and conclusions, with much repetition in the conclusions from the premises. Herman
Received on Monday, 13 January 2003 08:06:28 UTC