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

RE: English examples in the OWL 2 syntax specification

From: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 22:24:13 +0100
To: "'Vojtech Svatek'" <Svatek@vse.cz>
Cc: "'Kaarel Kaljurand'" <kaljurand@gmail.com>, <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000001c916b0$3c6fb9e0$a7aa1852@wolf>

Hello,

Using both forms might be really awkward. There is not that much space and I don't really know how to link the two sentences
together. Using two forms seems to me like saying "We weren't able to decide".

Regards,

	Boris

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Vojtech Svatek
> Sent: 14 September 2008 21:16
> To: Boris Motik
> Cc: 'Kaarel Kaljurand'; public-owl-wg@w3.org
> Subject: RE: English examples in the OWL 2 syntax specification
> 
> 
> Hi Boris, all,
> 
> My (instant) suggestion would be:
> - to use *both* forms when the particular construct is used for the first
> time, for sure
> - then to only use one of them (to reduce verbosity), probably the natural
> language one.
> 
> I definitely advise to systematically use, in a single example, either the
> names with the prefix ('a:') or the common names only. To say, either we
> talk about a relationship of semantic web entities: "a:Brian is a a:Dog"
> (referring to an individual identified by a URL, and a class from the
> particular ontology), or "Brian is a dog" (which means that the identity of
> the individual and the set-theoretic meaning of the 'dog' concept follow,
> considering the sentence by itself, from some context - which merely
> happens to coincide with the mentioned URIs).
> 
> Regards
> Vojtech
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Vojtech Svatek, University of Economics, Prague
> Nam.W.Churchilla 4, 13067 Praha 3, CZECH REPUBLIC
> phone: +420 224095495, e-mail: svatek@vse.cz
> web: http://nb.vse.cz/~svatek
> 
> 
> 
> -----public-owl-wg-request@w3.org napsal: -----
> 
> >Komu: "'Kaarel Kaljurand'" <kaljurand@gmail.com>,
> ><public-owl-wg@w3.org>
> >Od: "Boris Motik" <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
> >Odeslal: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org
> >Datum: 14.09.2008 21:59
> >Předmět: RE: English examples in the OWL 2 syntax specification
> >
> >
> >(I redirected this discussion to public-owl-wg, because I feel this
> >is a more appropriate list.)
> >
> >Hello,
> >
> >Thanks a lot for this analysis -- it is certainly important to make
> >the examples as consistent as possible.
> >
> >Before I change the examples, though, I believe we need to decide on
> >the purpose of the English examples. I included them into the
> >spec because I felt that many readers could benefit from an intuitive
> >explanation what a particular axiom means. At first, I tried
> >not to use the actual OWL elements in the example; thus, I would
> >explain an axiom
> >
> >SubClassOf( a:Child a:Person )
> >
> >with the sentence "Children are people". But then, some people
> >complained about such paraphrasing of the axioms: they felt that
> >this
> >was imprecise. Instead, they thought we should paraphrase this axiom
> >as "Each instance of a:Child is an instance of a:Person as
> >well" -- that is, to use a more modeling-centric view. I updated much
> >of the spec; however, I did not know myself what to do in many
> >cases. Thus, it is highly likely that the examples are inconsistent.
> >
> >Now the question is really what approach to adopt. I still believe
> >that having some kind of English explanation would be very
> >useful. I'd like to hear from others about what kind of approach to
> >adopt there -- a more natural-language one or a more OWL-centric
> >one.
> >
> >Thanks again -- I find this analysis really useful.
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >    Boris
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: public-owl-dev-request@w3.org
> >[mailto:public-owl-dev-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Kaarel
> >> Kaljurand
> >> Sent: 14 September 2008 20:26
> >> To: public-owl-dev@w3.org
> >> Subject: English examples in the OWL 2 syntax specification
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I extracted all the examples from the OWL 2 Syntax specification
> >(a
> >> revision from
> >> the end of August) to see how the specification expresses the OWL
> >> axioms in English.
> >> After sorting the examples by the axioms, many irregularities in
> >the
> >> English expressions
> >> were revealed. I think most of the irregularities are
> >unintended/unwanted.
> >>
> >> See the report:
> >>
> >>
> >http://www.cl.uzh.ch/kalju/ontologies/OWL_spec/owl_spec_examples.html
> >
> >>
> >> --
> >> kaarel
> 
Received on Sunday, 14 September 2008 21:25:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 14 September 2008 21:25:55 GMT