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

Re: Quick comments on the QRG

From: Rinke Hoekstra <hoekstra@uva.nl>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 10:56:30 +0200
Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <88EECBE2-7C31-497A-981C-A7CEB4C3FD0F@uva.nl>
To: Jie Bao <baojie@gmail.com>
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 16 April 2009 08:57:07 GMT