LC3 Responses/DB4

From OWL
Revision as of 16:17, 2 September 2009 by IanHorrocks (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

To: daniel@fgm.com
CC: public-owl-comments@w3.org
Subject: [LC response] To Daniel Barclay

Dear Daniel,

Thank you for your comment
     <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Sep/0001.html>
on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts.

I have further clarified the wording along the lines you suggested [1].

[1] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Syntax&diff=25485&oldid=25433

Please acknowledge receipt of this email to <mailto:public-owl-comments@w3.org> (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.

Regards,
Ian Horrocks
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


That change does solves the grammar problem.

However, the sentence still seems unclear.

It currently says:

   ... a prefix name is often identified with the prefix IRI it is associated
   with ...

Is it trying to say that the prefix name is used to refer to the
prefix IRI?  If so, the wording seems backwards.  ("identified with"
sounds like it might be used in the sense of "identified using,"
but you aren't saying that people use the prefix IRI to identify
the prefix name.)

Is it trying to say something else?  (Is it using "identified with" in
the sense "A and B are identified with each other" (that is,
associated)?)

My guess is that it's trying to say this:

    ... a prefix name is often used to refer to the prefix IRI that is
    associated with the prefix name ...

Perhaps that wording or a refined version of it would be better.


To: daniel@fgm.com
CC: public-owl-comments@w3.org
Subject: [LC response] To Daniel Barclay

Dear Daniel,

Thank you for your comment
     <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Aug/0038.html>
on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts.

We appreciate your careful reading of the document, and have made the necessary correction [1].

[1] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Syntax&diff=25473&oldid=25433

Please acknowledge receipt of this email to <mailto:public-owl-comments@w3.org> (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.

Regards,
Ian Horrocks
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


In the OWL 2 Structural Specification and Functional-Style Syntax
specification at http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/CR-owl2-syntax-20090611/,
section 2.4 says:

   ... a prefix name is often identified with the prefix IRI is associated
   with ...

(As written, that is unparseable.)