review of S&AS and 5.3

In the discussion of issue 5.3 we agreed that the following sentence was 
unfortunate, having a plausible non-monotonic reading. 

"For such OWL ontologies the direct model theory is authoritative and the 
RDFS-compatible model theory is secondary."

I believe Peter indicated he would change it a little. (e.g. delete in its 
entireity would be acceptable to me, particularly bearing in mind the test 
changes for I5.3, such as requiring consistency checkers to say which of the 
two semantics they implement).


Received on Thursday, 24 July 2003 13:42:29 UTC