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

Re: Quick comments on the QRG

From: Jie Bao <baojie@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 16:38:24 -0400
Message-ID: <b6b357670904151338s33aa45b5rf944279a27ba031f@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
Peter.

Thanks again for the through review. I updated QRG

The diff is

http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Quick_Reference_Guide&diff=22195&oldid=22157

This version is

More goes inline

Jie

On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider
<pfps@research.bell-labs.com> wrote:
> If you are going to keep the pointers to NF&R, then a simple ? is all
> that is needed.  The bracketing parentheses do not add anything (and
> only detract).
>
> Organization:
>  I disagree with putting class/... axioms in the ... sections but not
>  enough to agitate for a reorganization.
>
> Nomenclature:
>  If you are going to use short forms, you should use "standard" ones,
>  i.e., (...) instead of [...] (even though [] is nicer).
>
It has been changed

>
> Semantics:
>  If you have "semantics" for some axioms, you should have them for
>  all.  If you can't have them for all, you shouldn't have any.  If you
>  have them for all, then you should get the semantics at least close to
>  correct.
>
All semantics are out now

> Links:
>  The links to the Primer are broken due to the ongoing rewrite of the
>  Primer.
>
Fixed

> Abstract (2nd paragraph):
>  Much better would be:
>    This document provides a quick reference guide to the OWL 2 language.
>
Done

> S1
>  The initial bit of S1 should be something like:
>    The standard ... in OWL 2 are
>
Done

> S2
>  The title should be something like:
>    OWL 2 Constructs
>
>  It is not necessary to repeat the section titles.
>
Removed repetition

> S2.1.1
>  Should be titled something like:
>    Boolean Connectives and Enumeration
>
Now is Boolean Connectives and Enumeration of Individuals

> S2.1.2
>  It is not necessary to have
>   Every owl:Restriction is an owl:Class.
>  as this comes from the structure of the document.
>
That's true, but making it explicit may help beginners.

>  A better arrangement for the cardinalities would be to have two lines
>  in the second column, the first without the C and the second with.
>  This would allow the removal of the "Cardinality Restrictions" box.
>
Done

>  if C presents -> if C is present
>
>  It would be better to have the if ... lines left-justified and the
>  triples below them indented a bit.
>
changed to without C /with C

> S2.1.3
>  Many of the points for S2.1.2 apply here as well.
>
> S2.1.4
>  See "Organization" note.
>
If you prefer to have Class Axioms and Property Axioms to be separate
sections, I'm happy to do so.

> S2.2
>  The introductory paragraph can just be replaced with
>    Built-in datatypes are unary data ranges.
>
Changed to "Built-in datatypes are unary data ranges. OWL 2 does not
provide direct support for n-ary data ranges but provides syntactical
hooks for applications to add them. "

>  You need to say that the D in DatatypeRestriction is a built-in
>  datatype, arbitrary data ranges are not allowed.
>
added

>  The table has some glitches.  It would probably be better to not have
>  the f/v box by itself in a column.  (I'm not sure where it would be
>  best to put it - perhaps in the left-hand column.)
>
they are moved to the middle column as comments.

> S2.3.1
>  The owl:ObjectProperty does not add anything here.
>
Changed to

Object Properties are instances of owl:ObjectProperty
Datatype Properties are instances of owl:DatatypeProperty

I believe these lines will give readers better view on the connection
between functional syntax and RDF syntax. Thus I prefer to keep them.

>  The table has some boxing glitches.
>
>  Better than = owl:Thing x owl:Thing is "Universal relation"
>  Better than "empty binary relation" is "Empty relation"
>  Even better would be to just remove the column.
>
Removed

> S2.3.2
>  There is no "," in the FS for DisjointObjectProperties.  Also occurs
>  elsewhere.
>
Fixed for DisjointObjectProperties, and SameIndividual

> S2.4
>  Many of the points for S2.3 apply here as well.
>
> S2.5
>  The j= doesn't need to be on a separate line.
>
Fixed

> S2.6
>  This should not have the same status as, e.g., Declarations.
>
I'm not clear about this suggestion. could you be more specific?

> S2.8 - S2.9
>  This is not a good way of presenting annotations.  The problem is how
>  to present annotations in the organization of the QRG.  The following
>  appears to be the best compromise (but see "Organization" above).
>

>  S2.8 Annotations
>
>  S2.8.1 Annotations of Objects
>
>  AnnotationAssertion( AP AS AV )
>    AP AS AV
>
Done

>  S2.8.2 Annotations of Axioms
>
>  AXIOM(Annotation(AP AV) ....)
>    s p o .
>    x rdf:type owl:Axiom .
>    x owl:subject s .
>    x owl:predicate p .
>    x owl:object o.
>    x AP AV .
>      If AXIOM(...) becomes s p o .
>
>  AXIOM(Annotation(AP AV) ....)
>    x ....
>    x AP AV .
>       If AXIOM(...) becomes x ....
>
Done. With this change, Reification section becomes redundant thus I delete it.

>  S2.8.3 AnnotationProperties
>
>  ....
>
>  S2.8.4 Annotation Axioms
>
>  .... (but without the "or" section)
>
Done. I moved AnnotationAssertion out from this section. Was your
suggestion keeping the "s AP v." form still in this section?

>
> S2.10
>  As this is deprecated, it doesn't belong in this document.
>
Listing deprecated vocabulary and their replacement with will give
people who is familiar with OWL 1 better understanding on the
vocabulary.


> S2.11
>
>  I suggest instead
>
>  S2.11 Annotations of Ontologies
>
>    Ontology( ON [ VN ] Import(IN) ... Annotation(AP AV) ... ... )
>     ON rdf:type owl:Ontology .
>     [ ON owl:versionInfo VN . ]
>     ON owl:imports IN .
>     ...
>     ON AP AV .
>     ...
>     ...
>
>     (Also for unnamed ontologies.)
>
Done

> S4.1
>  owl:realPlus is gone
>  owl:rational is in OWL 2
Updated

>  need to discuss disjointness
I wonder readers should get into the details of DT semantics. As we
will talk about semantics in general, we may skip mentioning this too.

>  many of the time DTs listed are not in OWL 2
>
I updated with the DTs currently listed in syntax
>
> peter
>
>



-- 
Jie Bao
http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~baojie

Facebook,Twitter,Skype,Msn,LinkedIn - check url above
Received on Wednesday, 15 April 2009 20:39:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 15 April 2009 20:39:53 GMT