- From: Rinke Hoekstra <hoekstra@uva.nl>
- Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 10:56:30 +0200
- To: Jie Bao <baojie@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
Hi Jie, I have two other comments: * Consider renaming section 1 from "Name Spaces" to "Namespaces" * The links to the new features and rationale document in the second column of tables (the syntax column) may seem to be part of the syntax, e.g. ObjectExactCardinality(n P C) (N) -Rinke On 15 apr 2009, at 22:38, Jie Bao wrote: > 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 --- Drs Rinke Hoekstra Leibniz Center for Law | AI Department Faculty of Law | Faculty of Sciences Universiteit van Amsterdam | Vrije Universiteit Kloveniersburgwal 48 | De Boelelaan 1081a 1012 CX Amsterdam | 1081 HV Amsterdam +31-(0)20-5253499 | +31-(0)20-5987752 hoekstra@uva.nl | hoekstra@few.vu.nl Homepage: http://www.leibnizcenter.org/users/rinke
Received on Thursday, 16 April 2009 08:57:06 UTC