LC3 Responses/DB2

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/0023.html>
on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts.

We appreciate your careful reading of the document, and I have made the necessary corrections.

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

Regarding the OWL 2 Document Overview document current at
http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-overview
(http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-owl2-overview-20090611/):


* Section 2.3 says:

     However, some conditions must be placed on ontology structures in
     order to ensure that they can be translated into a SROIQ knowledge
     base, for example, transitive properties cannot be used in number
     restrictions (see Section 3 of the OWL 2 Structural Specification
     document [OWL 2 Structural Specification] for a complete list of these
     conditions).

   That should be "... base; for example, ..."


* Section 2.3 says "RDF-graphs."  That should be simply "RDF graphs."

* Section 2.3 says:
     ... Specification, i.e, as ...

   That sould be:
     ... Specification, i.e., as ...


Daniel
-- 
(Plain text sometimes corrupted to HTML "courtesy" of Microsoft Exchange.) [F]