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

Re: ACTION-333 Quick Review of Quick Reference Guide

From: Jie Bao <baojie@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 12:19:35 -0400
Message-ID: <b6b357670904290919v4c1e64aja70ee1237dbd0eb8@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
Peter

Thanks for the through review. I have implemented most of your
suggestions. Some of the pending work is listed here

> - 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.

This is pending WG decision

> 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.

Will do after this pass

> - 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.

I have added note that an annotated object must be named. Further
revision will be made given additional comments from the WG.

All other comments should have been addressed. Please let me know if
you are happy with the changes.

http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Quick_Reference_Guide

Thanks again for your help

Jie

On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 7:08 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider
<pfps@research.bell-labs.com> wrote:
>
>        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
>
>



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

Facebook,Twitter,Skype,Msn,LinkedIn - check url above
Received on Wednesday, 29 April 2009 16:20:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 29 April 2009 16:20:19 GMT