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

Re: ACTION-333 Quick Review of Quick Reference Guide

From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 11:11:29 +0100
Message-Id: <08F81E33-87E3-43F4-B212-84D68E76FB53@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
To: Christine Golbreich <cgolbrei@gmail.com>
On 23 Apr 2009, at 09:03, Christine Golbreich wrote:

> A first quick comment about links.
>
> - NF&R says what a new feature is and not only why a new feature has
> been added. If it turns out that NF&R has unvoluntary been too much
> cut and gives a wrong impression, it's urgent to say it. I will revert
> and reintroduce some content of previous version.

Please do not do that without discussion -- the vote to publish the  
document as a WD was made on the basis of the current version.

>
> - QRG links
> to simplify, there are 3 profiles of QRG readers : (1) newbies, (2)
> OWL 1 familiar users, (3) advanced
>
> Links useful for
> (1): to Primer + NF&R for new features
> (2): to NF&R
> (3): no "instructional" (Primer or NF&R)  but only "technical"
> documents i.e. normative specs (syntax and semantics).
>
> I suggest to keep all links to NF&R and Primer. Otherwise if you
> consider that they are "not very useful", remove both links to NF&R
> and Primer.

I agree with Peter that the extra "links" column is a waste of space  
and that there are far too many links anyway. IMHO, links to RDF- 
mapping are clearly inappropriate and *must* be removed; links to  
NF&R are clearly superfluous (given the purpose of this document) and  
*should* be removed; links to Primer may be confusing and/or of  
limited utility and *could* be removed. On the whole, I favour  
removing as many links as possible.

Ian


>
> 2009/4/23 Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>:
>>
>>        Quick Review of QRG
>>
>> I reviewed the version of 22 April 2009.  This version has the link
>> column up to about Section 2.2.1.
>>
>> General comments:
>>
>> - Satisfying the following comments will require quite large  
>> changes to
>>  the document.  A re-review will be needed.
>>
>> - Moving the links to a separate column is a bad idea.  It consumes
>>  extra space to no good effect.  Links in the QRG should be from the
>>  relevant information itself, as they used to be.
>>
>> - Links to NF&R are not very useful in the QRG.  Users of this  
>> document
>>  will not be interested in why a new feature had been added to OWL 2.
>>  Instead they will be interested in what the feature is (and thus the
>>  old links from the FS column are useful) and in how to use the  
>> feature
>>  (and thus the links to the Primer are useful).  I suggest that all
>>  links to NF&R be removed.
>>
>> - Links to the RDF Mapping do not provide any useful information and
>>  should also be used.  This document itself provides the information
>>  needed about the mapping, and in a form much more likely to be
>>  comprehensible by the readers of this document.
>>
>> - The document is missing named classes, properties, and individuals.
>>  Lines like the following should be added:
>>  Named class  U  U
>>  In some places names are required but the document does not
>>  distinguish between names and expressions.  The places that I  
>> noticed
>>  where names are required are 2.6 Declarations and 2.7 Annotations.
>>
>> - This document should use terminology from the normative OWL 2
>>  documents.  This requires at least some changes to the following
>>  terminology:
>>  OWL class -> class expression
>>  object property -> object property expression
>>  I second Christine's comment to use the same short forms as in  
>> SS&FS,
>>  in general, but it may be that C is better than CE, if only to save
>>  space.
>>
>>  I suggest the following start of a fix for the notation paragraph:
>>
>>    We use the following notation conventions: "C" is a class
>>    expression, "D" is a data range, "P" is an object property
>>    expression, "R" is a data property, "A" is an annotation property,
>>    "a" is an OWL individual, "v" is a literal, and "n" is a
>>    non-negative integer. All of the previous can have subscripts.
>>    "_:x" is a blank node.  "(a1 ... an)" is an RDF list.
>>
>>  Then use subscripts where Q, S, and v were used before.
>>
>> - There are some awkward sentences in the document.  I haven't  
>> changed
>>  them, but a final pass should be made after the content is fixed.
>>
>> - Subsections should be used sparingly.  I suggest no sub-sub- 
>> sections
>>  (2.1.1, etc.) at all.
>>
>> - This document does not really need to address n-ary data ranges.  I
>>  suggest removing all mention of n-ary data ranges and their support.
>>
>> - In some places the document uses explicit iteration (n-ary  
>> individual
>>  equality) and in some places it uses implicit iteration (equivalent
>>  properties).  Only one should be used.  I suggest implicit.
>>
>> - The document is missing some constructs.  I noticed:
>>  - prefixes
>>  - datatype definitions
>>  - names, literals
>>  - individuals - named and anonymous
>>
>> - It would probably be better to merge all the datatype and data  
>> range
>>  stuff into one section.  The built-in datatypes could be more
>>  succinctly presented by just listing the xsd datatypes.
>>
>> Specific comments:
>>
>> - The abstract needs to be completely rewritten, to be something  
>> like:
>>
>>  This document provides a quick reference guide to the OWL 2  
>> language.
>>
>> - Section 1 should be renamed to "Prefixes" and the first sentence
>>  changed to "The standard prefixes in OWL 2 are:" to conform with the
>>  wording in the normative OWL 2 documents.
>>
>> - "_:x" is a blank node. All of these can have subscripts.
>>
>> - The link for RDF lists should probably point to Turtle or some  
>> other
>>  place that uses this syntax for RDF lists.
>>
>> - "all OWL individuals" -> "universal class" (maybe)
>>
>> - The "Every owl:Restriction is an owl:Class." sentence is not  
>> needed at
>>  all.
>>
>> - The presentation of cardinalities should be made easier to  
>> understand.
>>  I suggest something like
>>
>>                    |                              | _:x rdf:type  
>> owl:Restriction.
>>                    | ObjectExactCardinalty(n P)   | _:x  
>> owl:onProperty P.
>>                    |                              | _:x  
>> owl:cardinality n.
>>  exact cardinality |  
>> -----------------------------|------------------------
>>                    |                              | _:x rdf:type  
>> owl:Restriction.
>>                    | ObjectExactCardinalty(n P C) | _:x  
>> owl:onProperty P.
>>                    |                              | _:x  
>> owl:qualifiedCardinality n.
>>                    |                              | _:x  
>> owl:onClass C.
>>
>> - "<x> Properties are instances of owl:<x>Property" should be  
>> changed to
>>  just "<x> Property Expressions".  The last bit is not part of the  
>> FS,
>>  and in any case doesn't add any information.
>>
>> - "universal <x> property" and "empty <x> property"
>>
>> - The range of a datatype property axiom is a data range, not a  
>> class.
>>
>> - Data range intersection and union are switched up in the table.
>>
>> - positive object property assertion needs to indicate that P is an
>>  object property, not an object property expression.
>>
>> - A and AP are both used for annotation properties.  Only one  
>> should be.
>>
>> - The section on Annotations needs work.  Object annotations are on
>>  names only, for example.  The full fixing up of this section  
>> should be
>>  done after some of the above changes are made.
>>
>> - The FS for deprecation doesn't need the short form - just write  
>> out.
>>  Deprecation can be used for individuals as well.
>>
>> - The section on ontologies should not say "Annotations of  
>> Ontologies".
>>
>> - This is a quick reference guide and does not need to mention all  
>> the
>>  arcana.  Therefore the section on deprecation should be deprecated.
>>
>> Tyops:
>>
>> - I fixed a few typos.  If the document is reverted these may need  
>> to be
>>  fixed:
>>  Abstract: his -> This
>>  2: an rdf list.
>>  2.1: _:x  owl:hasValue a.
>>       an n-ary data range
>>  2.2.1: bottom  object property
>>  2.5: a rdf:type C
>>
>>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Christine
>
Received on Thursday, 23 April 2009 10:12:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 23 April 2009 10:12:59 GMT