Subject: [LC response] To Petr Kremen
Thank you for your comment
on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts.
We very much appreciate your careful reading of the document. We have implemented all the changes you suggested; here is the diff:
The syntactic shortcuts for certain axioms were missing due to an oversight. I've added the shortcuts for reflexive and irreflexive properties. Please let us know should you find more axiom types for which the shortcuts are missing.
Please acknowledge receipt of this email to <mailto:email@example.com> (replying to this email should suffice). In your acknowledgment please let us know whether or not you are satisfied with the working group's response to your comment.
on behalf of the W3C OWL Working Group
CUT AND PASTE THE BODY OF THE MESSAGE (I.E. FROM "Dear" TO "Group") INTO THE BODY OF AN EMAIL MESSAGE. SET THE To:, CC:, AND Subject: LINES ACCORDINGLY.
PLEASE TRY TO REPLY IN A WAY THAT WILL ALLOW THREADING TO WORK APPROPRIATELY, I.E., SO THAT YOUR REPLY CONTINUES THE THREAD STARTED BY THE ORIGINAL COMMENT EMAIL
Some of these minor You probably already know - sorry for this redundance. - sec. 3.6. CP 2.2 "D" should be "D_I" CP 3.1 The last sentence is a bit confusing to me since 5.8.1 is applicable for OWL 2 DL, while CP is applicable for general OWL 2 ontologies. I would understand it better if the last sentence says "For OWL 2 DL ontology, the set AllDecl(D) must satisfy the typing constraints from Section 5.8.1. " - sec. 5.7 In the first sentence of the last example "Even through" -> "Even though" - sec. 7. Figure 6. UML class Literal has a field "lexicalValue", while in Figure 2 it is a "lexicalForm". This should be unified. - sec. 8.1.4 In the first example, the comment of the second axiom lacks the "Chris" name. - sec. 8.3.3 In the first example, the beginning of the last paragraph should be "This is because the first two axioms ..." rather than "This is because the this two axioms ...". Furthermore, in the last sentence of this paragraph : "... not an instance if ..." -> "not an instance of ..." and "... of a:Dogby ..." -> "of a:Dog by". - sec. 9.3.1. In the first paragraph, "OPE_1" -> "DPE_1" - sec. 9.6.2. In the example, "... the following three names ..." -> "... the following four names ..." - sec. 11.2 Restrictions on Datatypes, third condition: "... for each axiom of the form DatatypeRestriction( DT DR ) ..." -> "... for each axiom of the form DatatypeDefinition( DT DR ) ..." - A general remark: Why did You choose to provide syntactic sugar explanations for some OWL 2 constructs and axioms ( e.g. EquivalentClasses( CE1 CE2 ) is equivalent to the following two axioms: SubClassOf( CE1 CE2 ), SubClassOf( CE2 CE1 )) and not for others (e.g. IrreflexiveObjectProperty( OPE ) can be specified as equivalent to SubClassOf( owl:Thing ObjectComplementOf( ObjectHasSelf( OPE ) ) ). Cheers, Petr Kremen