- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 09:49:37 -0600
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, www-webont-wg@w3.org
On Mon, 2003-01-27 at 08:40, Jeremy Carroll wrote: [...] > What I do care about is that the documents we produced are consistent. > Currently they are not. Hmm... that would be more plain if I could look at * a test case/document, d * an excerpt from one of our specs that clearly showed P(d) for some P. * another excerpt from one of our specs that clearly showed not(P(d)) > I have said on a number of occassions before the f2f that the Guide, the > Overview and the Reference are inconsistent [1], [2] , [3], [4] with the > AS&S on this issue - in that they clearly show owl:intersectionOf as only in > OWL DL, whereas AS&S shows it in OWL Lite. That's a reasonably clear abstract of what I'd like to see, but it suggests that our specs specify vocab: Dialect -> PowerSet(URI) such that owl:intersectionOf \in vocab(OWL Lite) would be well-defined. Guide/Overview/Reference are sorta written that way, but we've organized the documents so that they're informative; the normative material is in AS&S, but it doesn't define a vocab function like that (does it?). Hmm... -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Monday, 27 January 2003 10:50:00 UTC