W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-dev@w3.org > July to September 2009

Owl2DotOwlDevel comments

From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 17:43:11 -0700
Message-Id: <68C90EFE-F2B3-41F4-8844-3D88E816C92C@topquadrant.com>
To: public-owl-dev@w3.org
Hi Michael,

many thanks for working on the owl.owl file, which I am tracking on  
the OWL mailing list and


I have copied a snapshot of the page above into an N3 file and opened  
it in TBC. It works nicely out of the box.

Here are some comments:

1) owl:topObjectProperty has the wrong rdf:type of rdf:ObjectProperty

2) I think the following classes should be rdfs:subClassOf  
    - owl:AsymmetricProperty
    - owl:IrreflexiveProperty
    - owl:ReflexiveProperty
    - owl:SymmetricProperty (this used to be in OWL 1)
    - owl:TransitiveProperty (in OWL 1 as well)

3) I think it would be great to have some triples on the XSD datatypes  
in that file. I know, you may not want to have this in the OWL  
namespace, yet you are already adding triples to RDFS properties, so  
why not also for XSD?

4) The following states that owl:DataRange has been replaced with  


Would it make sense to add owl:DataRange rdf:type owl:DeprecatedClass ?

5) Great to see rdfs:labels and comments there! Some editorial  
comments (and sorry for those tiny details)

a) I would start the comments with an uppercase letter and end them  
with a dot to form regular sentences. This will hit you back if you  
ever want to add a second sentence (separated by .). Also, most other  
ontologies seem to do that, including the RDF Schema ontology.

b) For RDFS resources such as rdfs:label, please do not include  
comments and labels, because they are already defined in the RDFS  
namespace document


The ranges and domains of those RDFS properties are fine to have in  
the OWL document, as long as they are compatible (they will just be  
merged then). The same applies to the comments and labels - you could  
copy them if you want but please do not change them - this will cause  

c) The comments often start with "the property for ..." such as in
	"the property determining the cardinality of a maximum..."
Why not just
	"Determines the cardinality of a maximum..." ?
Especially the "the" sounds strange, for example "the annotation  
property for adding a label to an entity" reads as if rdfs:label would  
be the only possible property for that purpose. Replacing "the" with  
"a" should fix that.

d) In addition to comments, it would be great to have a reference to  
the section in the formal specifications as rdfs:seeAlso (I know,  
these URLs will change so it's probably too early now)

e) It is great to be finally rid of the "backwardCompatibleWitesh"  
typo :)

Received on Thursday, 23 July 2009 00:43:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:58:18 UTC