W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > April 2009

Action 311-- Review of SS&FS document

From: Bernardo Cuenca Grau <Bernardo.Cuenca.Grau@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 11:02:32 +0100
Message-ID: <49D5DEB8.6020602@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
To: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>

The document is currently in a great shape. My comments below are very 
minor.


* Section 1 *


`For example, a class expression describes a set of individuals in terms 
of the restrictions on the individuals' features'
--> Not clear. Probably it would be better to replace the word `feature' 
by something else.
 

* Section 2.1 *

`Sets written in one of the linear syntaxes ' --> the terms `linear 
syntax' and `exchange syntax' are sometimes used
intercheangeably in the document. Probably the document should refer to 
theses syntaxes in a consistent way. I would suggest
dispensing with the term `linear syntax'.

* Section 2.3 *

The link [UNICODE] seems broken. Same happens with the link [XML 1.0].

* Section 3 *


`The following list summarizes all the conditions that O is required to 
satisfy to be an OWL 2 DL ontology. ' -->  should
say `The following list summarizes all the conditions that *an OWL 2 
ontology* O is required to satisfy
to be an OWL 2 DL ontology. '

The last of these conditions says: `Each O' directly imported into O 
MUST satisfy all of these restrictions as well. '
It should probably say: ``Each O' *imported* into O MUST satisfy all of 
these restrictions as well. ''

* Section 3.2 *

`To access a particular version of OI, one needs to know that version's 
version IRI VI' --> This sentence seems broken.


* Section 3.4 *

The link to Section 3.6 seems broken.

* Section 3.7 *

Reference [UNICODE] seems broken

Reference to Section 3.6 seems broken


* Section 4.1 *

Description of the value space of owl:rational. The specification says 
the following:
`It is a subset of the value space of owl:real, and it contains the 
value space of xsd:decimal (and thus
as well of all other xsd: numeric datatypes from the above list)'.

It is not clear which exactly are the numeric datatypes in the above 
list: all of them? a subset of them?

* Section 4.2 *

`The data property with IRI owl:topDataProperty connects all possible 
individuals with all literals.
 (In the DL literature this is often called the top role.) ' --> I don't 
think it is called top role. Actually, I
don't know whether this special role has been defined in the DL 
literature. The top role often refers to the
one that is interpreted as the universal binary relation over the 
abstract domain.

* Section 5.6 *

`Individuals in the OWL 2 syntax represent actual objects (semantic 
individuals) from the domain' --> the
expression `semantic individual' is confusing.

* Section 5.6.2 *

Replace  `the axiom closure of an ontology O' by  `the import closure of 
an ontology O' (or vice versa). In any case, axiom closure and
import closure seem to be used to denote the same notion in this section.

` (i.e., with an anonymous individual having a globally unique node ID). 
' --> Not clear what `globally unique' means
in this context.


* Section 5.8 *

`Each IRI I used in an OWL 2 ontology O can, and sometimes even must, be 
declared in O' --> Probably the words `can' and
`must' should be written in italics for consistency with the rest of the 
document.

* Section 5.8.1 *


`If an object property with an IRI I occurs in some axiom in Ax, then I 
is declared in Ax as an object property.'
--> It is not clear how one would know whether I is an object property 
if it has not been declared. Obviously it should
be possible to know it from the way the IRI occurs in the ontology, but 
this probably deserves some explanation.
Same comment applies to the remaining bullets.

* Section 5.8.2 *

`Although declarations are optional for the most part,... ' --> This is 
not quite clear. Section 5.8.1 seems to imply
that declarations should always exist in OWL 2 DL. So, it is likely that 
many people will like their ontologies to
be in OWL 2 DL and in many cases declarations would actually be compulsory.


* Section 6.2 *

`notion of data property expressions'--> replace with `notion of data 
property expression'


* Section 9.2.1 *

First example. `Having a dog is a kind of having a pet' --> sounds 
strange. it would probably be better to say that
`Having a dog implies having a pet'.

* Section 9.3.6 *

End of second example.
`which violates the functionality restriction on a:numberOfChildren and 
makes the ontology is satisfiable' --> this is
obviously broken. It should say something like `and makes the ontology 
unsatisfiable'.


* Section 9.4 *

`This axiom allows one to use the defined datatype DT as a synonym DR' 
--> should say:
`This axiom allows one to use the defined datatype DT as a synonym *of* DR'.

* Section 9.6 *

`The DataPropertyAssertion axiom allows one to state that an individual 
is connected by a data property expression to literal' -->
`The DataPropertyAssertion axiom allows one to state that an individual 
is connected by a data property expression to *a* literal'

* Section 9.6.6*

In the example, replace ` By the second axioms' with  `By the second axiom'

* Section 10.2 *

`These statements are treated as axioms only in order to simplify the 
structural specification of OWL 2.' --> Probably add another
explanatory sentence saying that annotations, unlike other axioms, are 
not treated as logical statements.

* Section 11.2 *

In the example, replace `The second axioms depends on the first one' 
with `The second axiom depends on the first one'.
Received on Friday, 3 April 2009 10:03:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 3 April 2009 10:03:05 GMT