W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > September 2008

RE: Review: Syntax

From: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 08:58:32 +0100
To: "'Mike Smith'" <msmith@clarkparsia.com>, <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <001301c91251$daa5a6f0$a7aa1852@wolf>

Hello,

Thanks for your review. I'll go through the review comments later; however, let me answer now your two meta-comments.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Mike Smith
> Sent: 09 September 2008 05:50
> To: public-owl-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Review: Syntax
> 
> I've completed my review of the syntax document.  Most of my comments
> are in the document [1].  Attached is a text file with a few strictly
> editorial comments.  Finally, two general comment on the examples.
> 
> 1) I found it to be somewhat inconsistent about what appears in
> special example blocks and what does not -- i.e., sometimes the
> narrative text uses examples that aren't typeset as such.  I think
> this is acceptable, but others might have thoughts.
> 

The idea was to use the <example> environment always. Now it might be the case that, in some places, I wasn't consistent. In
particular, it may be the case that I wanted just to give a one line example somewhere in the middle of some block. I'm unsure
myself as to what we should do with this: on the one hand, typesetting this in the <example> environment might break the flow, and
on the other hand not doing so is inconsistent. 

> 2) The examples include a lot of discussion about the OWA and the lack
> of UNA.  This seemed inappropriate for the Syntax doc, but I'm
> interested in others' views.
> 

This document was supposed to serve as a reference and as such, I felt it important to explain intuitively the semantics of various
constructs. OWA and UNA are probably two most prominent features of OWL that can be quite counterintuitive in practice. Therefore, I
thought it would be good not only to say what follows from the constructs that depend on them, but also what doesn't. I really
believe this will make the specification more accessible to people.

Thanks again for a detailed review!

Boris

> --
> Mike Smith
> 
> Clark & Parsia
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Syntax
Received on Tuesday, 9 September 2008 08:00:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:06 UTC