Raise an Issue

From OWL
Jump to: navigation, search

Please add descriptions of issues you would like to raise to this page. Include as much information as you can describing the issue, your name, and the name of another WG member seconding the issue (should there be one). Feel free to create a new wiki page to describe the issue, if you find that preferable, and link to it from here (but do include the title as section header). If you consider the issue to be editorial, please indicate that. Issues on this page will be reviewed by the chairs. Those that are accepted will be moved to the tracker, with either a new issue created, or an annotation made to an existing issue that is related. Those that are rejected will be move to Rejected Issues.

Editorial: Make abstracts more specifically targeted to the documents

Raised by AlanRuttenberg.

For example, here is the current abstract for syntax. I've italicized the portion that is generic. It should start with the bit about "This document defines...", include some motivation for the syntax (e.g. round tripping difficulties with the previous syntax, lack of an object model for implementors justifying the structural specification) and quickly list the constructs adding new expressivity.

OWL 1.1 extends the W3C OWL Web Ontology Language with a small but useful set of features that have been requested by users, for which effective reasoning algorithms are now available, and that OWL tool developers are willing to support. The new features include extra syntactic sugar, additional property and qualified cardinality constructors, extended datatype support, simple metamodelling, and extended annotations. This document defines a functional-style syntax for OWL 1.1, and provides an informal discussion of the meaning of the additional constructs. As well, an informational structural specification of OWL 1.1 ontologies is provided.