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

Requirements document?

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 15:42:07 +0000
Message-Id: <092C3DE2-3A81-45BA-BE20-65300C5C27CE@cs.man.ac.uk>
To: OWL 2 <public-owl-wg@w3.org>

I fulfilled an action a long time ago to show how I would prefer the  
annotated bibilography to be presented. Is there feedback? I don't  
find section 3 or 5 to be good to include.

Btw, at least one of the use cases isn't a use case:

There's no use case in there, just feature requirements.

Furthermore, I'm unclear why various productions are repeated. I  
don't like seemingly normative text in more than one place.

Also, we have Yet Another Set of Examples. I'm not against examples,  
per se, but I'm unclear what the role of these examples are. They  
aren't part of a whole ontology. They seem to exist for every feature  
but often not in an illuminating way. For example:

"""The following examples are some examples of Object Property  
Cardinality Restrictions from Use Cases among many in HCLS.
ExactCardinality( 1 hasDirectPart FrontalLobe ) (UC#1) 	Class of  
objects having exactly one direct part of type frontal lobe.
MinCardinality( 5 hasDirectPart owl:Thing ) 	Class of objects having  
at least 5 direct part.

While in OWL 1 it was only possible to express that a Brain  
Hemisphere has at least 5 direct part but not that it has exactly one  
direct part of each type: frontal, parietal, temporal, occipital,  
limbic lobe, as needed in UC#1), both statements are possible in OWL  
2 (see above)."""

This is pretty good because it illustrates the difference. I could  
imagine more text here and a pointer to the work around drafts.


"""    *  Automotive industry

MaxCardinality( 5 hasPart Door ) (UC#4) 	Class of objects having  
atmost 5 Door
ExactCardinality( 2 hasPart RearDoor ) (UC#4) 	Class of objects  
having exactly 2 RearDoor"""

This is just silly. It's not remotely Auto specific. It's not  
interesting and it's not convincing. And having the english  
transliteration seems patronizing. Then consider:

"""    *  HCLS

MaxCardinality( 1 hasSSN )"""

Some errors:

"""  OWL 2 EL is the maximal language for which reasoning, including  
query answering, is known to be worst-case polynomial. It is related  
to the theory of [EL++] [EL++ Update].

OWL 2 QL is the maximal language for which reasoning, including query  
answering, is known to be worst case logspace (same as DB). """

Anything which says "THE maximal" followed by such general terms is  
almost always wrong. It's extra wrong for OWL QL because, with the  
removal of, e.g., sameAs it's not even maximal.

(Sorry for the hit or miss, but most of these are "large flavor"  

Bijan "Feeling guilty but back in the saddle" Parsia..
Received on Tuesday, 20 January 2009 15:39:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:08 UTC