|Structural Specification and Functional-Style Syntax
* Section 1, "introduction", especially like the concept of the ontology modularization -
it will facilitate the ontology reuse and it is an issue that I'm facing today. I hope that in the future, we can have more support in this area.
here seems redundant.
from the imported ontologies?
other than "-0" and "+0", are there any other examples that show two numbers are equal, yet not identical? Where should we pay more attention to the difference?
and "No" are frequently used and are very natural answer to a lot of questions
a lot more descriptive - definitely very helpful in modeling and reasoning
Mapping to RDF Graphs 
It is great that W3C defines the mapping from OWL 2 to RDF graphs - it is very helpful when we move the ontologies around. I didn't get to all the details - it seems more for the people who are building semantic tools. As a data modeler, I just want to ensure that the transformation does not change the logical meaning of the ontologies, which is clearly stated in the introduction. Thanks for stating this clearly at the beginning.
PeterPatel-Schneider 02:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC) Combined with other part of comment.