AS & S review: Abstract, Introduction, Abstract Syntax

As was also mentioned by Guus, OWL Full should be mentioned.

Introduction (and table of contents):

It should also be mentioned in the introduction what Appendix 
A.2 does, or, better, in the current state, intends to do.

We discussed already earlier that the entire semantics document 
does not contain the word normative. 
What comes most close is still the following part of the 
"Appendix A contains a proof that the direct and RDFS-compatible 
semantics have the same consequences on OWL ontologies that 
correspond to abstract OWL ontologies that separate OWL 
individuals, OWL classes, OWL properties, and the RDF, RDFS, 
and OWL structural vocabulary. For such OWL ontologies the 
direct model theory is authoritative and the RDFS-compatible 
model theory is secondary."
The appendices contain the word "informative" in their title.
Since not all of Sections 2 to 5 is normative, I believe that
it is a good idea to add to the (sub)section names the words
normative and informative where appropriate.

Abstract Syntax:

When you read the later sections on direct semantics and
mapping to RDF graphs, you often need to refer back to the
abstract syntax, especially the OWL DL syntax (never the Lite
It is then inconvenient that the OWL DL syntax is described
by modification of OWL Lite syntax.
I noted that in fact, Section 2.3.2 on OWL DL axioms gives
the OWL DL axioms almost completely: only the last part
of the property axioms is missing.
I suggest to add therefore 1) the following sentence to Section
  As in OWL Lite, the following axioms make several properties
  be equivalent, or make one property be a sub-property of
  another: ... .
and 2) to add to the first paragraph of Section 2.3 that
  However, Section 2.3.2 lists the OWL DL axioms completely.

This simple change would greatly facilitate reading the later 
parts of the document (compare also my remarks about the section 
on mapping to RDF graphs).

Received on Tuesday, 14 January 2003 11:36:07 UTC