Sean Bechhofer wrote:

> In the process of documenting my implementations, I have produced the
> following:

I glanced at this and thought it was pretty good, distinctly more readable 
than the stuff I produce. There were one or two technical mistakes, I can 
give a detailed review if the group wants (e.g. owl:equivalentClass 
inadequately handled).

We perhaps need to have consensus on which technical changes we are making 
to OWL, since they tend to show up in this sort of document.

I think with this appraoch we are unlikely to get everything 100% spot on, 
so it would be good to have this in a document either which is updatable or 
with an errata page so we can fix it into the future.


Received on Thursday, 29 May 2003 05:39:01 UTC