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

Re: ACTION-319 Review profiles

From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 16:41:34 +0100
Message-Id: <3EC1C356-786B-4BB0-8F02-AE5AFD1C8F9A@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Cc: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
To: Achille Fokoue <achille@us.ibm.com>
Thanks for the review. Comments in line below and diff at [1]

Ian

[1] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php? 
title=Profiles&diff=21303&oldid=21102


On 1 Apr 2009, at 21:27, Achille Fokoue wrote:

>
> Here is my review of the Profiles specification:
>
>
> Overall comments:
>
> Despite some minor concerns listed below, the spec is ready to go.
>
>
> Detailed comments:
>
> Section 1: Introduction.
>
> The last paragraph of the introduction says 'This document depends  
> on the four features identified in the OWL 2 Specification [pointer  
> to the syntax spec] as being at risk'. However, I could only find  
> two features at risk in the Syntax Spec (Feature at risk #1  
> owl:rational support and Feature at risk #4: rdf:XMLLiteral  
> support, which should probably be numbered 2)

I fixed this to say "two features" -- xsd:decimal precision and  
owl:dateTime name are no longer at risk. It does seem to make sense  
to re-number the features at risk in SS&FS -- I will mention it to  
the editors.

>
>
> Section 4.1: OWL 2 RL Feature overview.
>
> NegativeObjectPropertyAssertion and NegativeDataPropertyAssertion  
> are disallowed, but it seems that they should be part of the  
> language since they can be expressed using other allowed constructs  
> (e.g. NegativeObjectPropertyAssertion(R, a, b) = DisjointClasses 
> (ObjectSomeValueFrom(R, ObjectOneOf(b)), ObjectOneOf(a))).

Good question, and one that has also been raised by Jos de Bruijn in  
a LC comment. It is on the agenda for discussion on Wednesday.

>
>
> Section 4.2.5 OWL 2 RL Axioms
>
> DataPropertyDomain is incorrectly defined as DataPropertyDomain :=  
> 'DataPropertyDomain' '(' axiomAnnotations DataPropertyExpression  
> superClassExpression ')'. superClassExpression in the previous  
> definition should be replaced by DataRange.

This is a *domain* statement, so I believe that it is correct that a  
class expression is specified (see Section 9.3.4 of SS&FS).

>
>
>
> Best regards,
> Achille.
Received on Monday, 6 April 2009 15:42:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 6 April 2009 15:42:10 GMT