W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ddwg@w3.org > October 2007

RE: Comments on the current version of the ontology

From: Rhys Lewis <rhys@volantis.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 04:20:25 -0600 (MDT)
To: "'JOSE MANUEL CANTERA FONSECA'" <jmcf@tid.es>, <public-uwa@w3.org>, <public-ddwg@w3.org>
Cc: <mymobileweb-celtic-es@lists.morfeo-project.org>
Message-ID: <001801c80e4c$418b9830$8b5f11ac@volantisuk>

Hi Jose,

Thanks for your comments. Responses in line.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ddwg-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-ddwg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of JOSE MANUEL
> Sent: 04 October 2007 18:23
> To: public-uwa@w3.org; public-ddwg@w3.org
> Cc: mymobileweb-celtic-es@lists.morfeo-project.org
> Subject: Comments on the current version of the ontology
> Hi,
> Here are my comments on [1].
> + Editorial:
> "of information that can be used to adapt materials materials from".
> Materials is +duplicated
> "within appropriately written reasoning systems." a reference
> to Pellet or some other open source reasoning system would be
> useful "...defining unique names for each class ...". This is
> confusing.
> Suggested: "The mechanism consists of creating a common
> property 'deliveryContextEntityName' shared by all classes.
> This property for each class is restricted to have a distinct
> value (a unique string)."

I've updated the text for each of these. I hope you'll approve of the
changes :-)

As for naming particular products (Pellet), we don't normally do this in
W3C specifications as it can be taken as unfair endorsement.

> + Substantial
> * During our discussion on August 16th [2] based on [3] I
> agreed on providing alternative ways of providing
> alternateNames to the properties. I have done that. You can
> see the example on the attached OWL file for the property
> supportedNetworkBearers with has two annotation properties
> for the alternative ways of referring to it.

I can see your propsed mechanism. Since the changes will cause significant
disruption to the ontology, and to the code to extract the document, I'd
like to understand why you think this is a better approach. Can you
explain for me? There seems to be no advantage that I can see to doing it
this way
over the current approach. To me the current approach introduces less
coupling too.

> * If UAProf vocabulary hasn't been used deliberately We would
> suggest to drop the Associated_UAProf_Entity class from the
> ontology and treat UAProf properties as annotation properties
> (literals) but not instances.
> For the supportedNetworkBearers property I also provide the example.

+1 to this unless anyone objects!

> * Regarding the usage of schema subtypes in the ontology for
> modelling units we are still working on the matter and we
> provide an update very soon.
> New issues of this version
> + The originator field, perhaps we should use FOAF (or vCard) as the
> mechanism for representing people or organizations. The DCO
> would import these ontologies.

Do we need to define any particular mechanism? Why not simply leave it
open. Why should we force people to have a FOAF profile before they can
submit properties?

> + Derived Properties: I'm thinking ... perhaps these informal
> descriptions could be formalized as rules bound to the
> ontology in some rule language ... I think we need to
> investigate further on this
> Best Regards
> [1]
> http://www.w3.org/2007/uwa/editors-drafts/DeliveryContextOntol
> ogy/2007-10-31/DCOntology.html
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2007/08/16-uwawg-minutes.html
> [3]
> http://forge.morfeo-project.org/wiki_en/index.php/Feedback_on_
> the_W3C%27s_proposal_of_the_delivery_context_ontology
> [4] http://www.foaf-project.org
> [5] http://www.w3.org/2006/vcard/ns
> ----
> José Manuel Cantera Fonseca
> Telefónica I+D
Received on Sunday, 14 October 2007 10:20:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:00:15 UTC