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

Private review of the Document Overview

From: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 14:34:39 +0200
Message-ID: <0EF30CAA69519C4CB91D01481AEA06A00125F74E@judith.fzi.de>
To: <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Hi!

I finally found the time to have a look at the Document Overview. All my points are editorial and probably simple to cope with.

Best,
Michael

* General: Consider writing all names (of syntaxes, semantics, etc) with capitalized letters. It's a bit incoherent at the moment.

* Abstract, 2nd par: The term "various" is used in two consecutive sentences. Choose a synonym for one of the two occurrences.

* Table of Contents: The "[Show Short TOC]" link seems exaggerated for this short document. Consider removing it (it's actually not in all our documents, e.g. not in the Direct Semantics).

* §1 (Introduction), last par: "OWL 1 and OWL 2 are designed to ...". Perhaps better something like: "As OWL 1, OWL 2 is designed..." The document, after all, is a document about OWL 2.

* §2, Figure, syntax layer: Write the full names of the syntaxes, i.e. avoid "M'ter. syntax" or "func. syntax". If necessary, use three lines: "Manchester/Syntax/document".

* §2, Figure, syntax layer: "turtle" is written "Turtle" (capital "T") later in the text. So should be in the figure, either.

* §2, Figure, semantics layer: "RDF Based Semantics" in Semantics layer: add the "-" between "RDF" and "Based".

* §2.2 (Syntaxes), 2nd par: "an XML serialization". Dangerous after this LC phase! It should become clear that this is a specific XML serialization that closely reflects the structure of OWL constructs, and that it is clearly distinguished from RDF/XML. 

* §2.2 (Syntaxes), 2nd par: "and a more readable syntax used in several ontology editing tools [OWL 2 Manchester Syntax]".
** Please explicitly say the name of that syntax! Currently, one only sees it from the citation mark, and the format of citation marks is possibly going to change in the future. 
** Put the citation mark directly behind the name of the syntax then. Currently, it looks as if the citation mark refers to "ontology editing tools".

* §2.2 (Syntaxes), 2nd par: "the functional-style syntax can also be used for serialization, although its main purpose is specifying the structure of the language". Can we say this about its purpose? I thought the structure of the language is primarily specified by the UML diagrams, although the functional syntax closely corresponds to the diagrams. Maybe, it's better to say something like that the "main purpose is to serve as an abstract syntax for the language"? This would also make sense in this context.

* §2.3 (Semantics), 1st par: "to answer queries about, e.g., class consistency, subsumption and instance retrieval." Somethings wrong with this sentence, I think: one doesn't answer queries /about/ instance retrieval?

* §2.3 (Semantics), 3rd par: 
** 1st sentence: The citation mark "[OWL 2 RDF-Based Semantics]" should be placed directly behind "RDF-Based Semantics".
** 1st sentence: The citation mark should be replaced by "[RDF Semantics]".
** 1st sentence: "compatible with _the_ RDF Semantics" (missing "the").
** end of par: That citation mark there can be dropped, since there is already one at the beginning of the par.

* §2.3 (Semantics), 4th par: "The correspondence theorem in Section 7.3 of the RDF-Based Semantics Document". It's Section 7.2 now:
<http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/RDF-Based_Semantics#Correspondence_Theorem>

* §2.4 (Profiles). For OWL 2 QL, nothing is said about its computational complexity, while there are such assertions for the other two profiles ("polinomial time ..."). Do we want to say something for QL, either?

* §4 (Roadmap), 2nd par: "and two alternative concrete syntaxes (XML and Manchester)." Should be "OWL/XML" instead of "XML".

* §4, table: The Direct Semantics is characterized by "defines the meaning of OWL 2 ontologies in terms of a model-theoretic semantics." This is exactly true for the RDF-Based Semantics, either. The latter is more specifically characterized by "an extension of the RDF Semantics". For the Direct Semantics, I suggest to say something like "compatible with the SROIQ description logic", because Section 2.3 already characterizes the Direct Semantics in just this way.

--
Dipl.-Inform. Michael Schneider
Research Scientist, Dept. Information Process Engineering (IPE)
Tel  : +49-721-9654-726
Fax  : +49-721-9654-727
Email: michael.schneider@fzi.de
WWW  : http://www.fzi.de/michael.schneider
=======================================================================
FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik an der Universität Karlsruhe
Haid-und-Neu-Str. 10-14, D-76131 Karlsruhe
Tel.: +49-721-9654-0, Fax: +49-721-9654-959
Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts, Az 14-0563.1, RP Karlsruhe
Vorstand: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Rüdiger Dillmann, Dipl. Wi.-Ing. Michael Flor,
Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Wolffried Stucky, Prof. Dr. Rudi Studer
Vorsitzender des Kuratoriums: Ministerialdirigent Günther Leßnerkraus
=======================================================================




Received on Friday, 10 April 2009 12:35:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 10 April 2009 12:35:28 GMT