- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 11:35:16 +0100
- To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, public-webont-comments@w3.org
At 23:36 10/05/2003 -0400, Jim Hendler wrote: >At 18:09 +0100 5/9/03, Brian McBride wrote: >>The RDFCore WG have asked me to send this comment on their behalf, as an >>addition to others already sent. >> >>Brian >> >>------------------------------- >> >>owlref-rdfcore-relationship-to-RDF >> >>RDFCore are concerned about the clarity in the OWL specifications of what >>RDF is legal OWL DL and OWL lite. This seems to be described only in S+AS >>which is a highly technical document and is likely to be inaccessible to >>many. On reviewing the reference document some significant restrictions >>were not apparent to the RDFCore reviewer. We cannot be confident, >>therefore, that other restrictions we would care about, have not been missed. >> >>RDFCore requests that the specifications be amended to include a >>description of necessary conditions for a RDF document to be in OWL DL and >>OWL Lite. This description should be as accurate as possible consistent >>with a goal of it being comprehensible to a majority of the community. >> >>Such a description may bring to light further issues. >> >>------------------------------- > >Brian - thank you for your comment - we will consider this. Uf the >RDFCore WG could suggest some specific wordings they'd like to see, or >give us more guidance than the above, it would help us, and would make it >less likely that this would become an issue that could hold up moving both >of our recommendations forward as we work out the wording. Err, I'm not sure how we can help here. Owl has defined subsets of RDF that Owl Lite and Owl DL operate on. I don't see how we can tell what those subsets are, since the point of this comment is that they are not adequately documented. Brian
Received on Monday, 12 May 2003 06:34:39 UTC