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

OWL 2 LC Comments

From: Zhe Wu <alan.wu@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 11:55:31 -0500
Message-ID: <4978A503.9000508@oracle.com>
To: Z Wu <alanzwu@yahoo.com>, OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>

Hi,

I have collected the following comments from my colleagues in Oracle.

The overall feeling is very positive.  Documents are very well written 
and high quality. OWL 2 is more understandable
than OWL 1 to software engineers because the RL/RDF rule set clearly 
shows a good portion of the OWL 2 semantics.

1. very minor printing issues
- OWL 2 Profiles printout (using Firefox) has a weird "span" code in 
Section 6.3
   DataIntersectionOf := 'IntersectionOf' '(' <span 
class="nontDataRange</span>

2. very minor typo
    RDF mapping document has a typo in Section 2.2. s/auhtor/author/.

3. Table 2 in Section 4.1 of OWL 2 Profiles is inconsistent with Section 
4.2.3. Table 2 omits
    a few constructs.

4. We want to see owl:rational taken out from OWL 2 RL. It is unclear 
how useful this datatype
    is to our users.

5. In the RDF mapping document, is it possible to keep OWL 2 vocabulary 
a bit smaller by replacing
    owl:minQualifiedCardinality with the existing owl:minCardinality?
    Same idea applies to owl:qualifiedCardinality, 
owl:maxQualifiedCardinality.
    After all, owl:onClass is there to differentiate the qualified vs. 
non-qualified case.

6. In Section 2.2 of RDF mapping document, are we missing a translation?
    It is unclear how the second example in 2.2 is translated into triples.
    The AnnotationAssertion in Table 1 has three parameters and that 
example has only two parameters
    for AnnotationAssertion.

7. For the RL/RDF rule set, it is useful to mention that it is not a 
minimal set. Some rules are redundant.
    Also, it will be useful to add rules like
    ?p1  subPropertyOf  ?p2  and     ?p2  subPropertyOf  ?p1  ==> ?p1 
equivalentProperty  ?p2
     (same thing applies to subClassOf)

8.  The justification for the [un]supported datatypes is not complete. 
For example, OWL 2 RL does not
     allow xsd:positiveInteger which does not appear to violate the 
stated justification
     "the intersection of  the value spaces of any set of these 
datatypes is either empty or infinite"

Cheers,

Zhe
Received on Thursday, 22 January 2009 16:56:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 22 January 2009 16:56:21 GMT