Re: NF&R update

Hi Christine,

On 18 mrt 2009, at 18:02, Christine Golbreich wrote:
> Thanks for your comment.
>
> In fact NF&R refered to both direct semantics, and RDF-based semantics
> in Section 2. indee, it was omitted in the first section (overview)
> and I have now added it.

Great

> In opposite, in section 3, for each new feature, it is intentionaly
> omitted. In fact the idea was to provide users interested in looking
> at more formal syntax and semantics of a new feature to check its
> meaning, with one link for each.
> I deliberately chose to refer to the normative syntax, because the
> direct model-theoretic semantics  (in my view)  is more 'fiendly' and
> easy to understand  than the RDF-based, but perhaps you have a
> different opinion or experience.

In fact, I do have a different opinion. Considering the gist of many  
LC comments on the current documents, most qualms seem to stem from  
the idea that the WG diverged from RDF and OWL Full. Although we know  
this is just appearance, it is a serious problem.

Omitting references to the RDF-based semantics, and *in particular*  
referring to the Direct Semantics using a link with the label  
'Semantics' will again enforce this view.

So, I'd better be safe than sorry and add links to both the Direct  
Semantics and the RDF-Based semantics for all features.

-Rinke

>
> If the WG feels it useful, no worries, I may add the
> RDF-based-semantics for each feature as well.
> Just let me know your decision.
>
> Christine



-----------------------------------------------
Drs. Rinke Hoekstra

Email: hoekstra@uva.nl    Skype:  rinkehoekstra
Phone: +31-20-5253497
Web:   http://www.leibnizcenter.org/users/rinke
Visit: Kloveniersburgwal 48,       room ET1.09c

Leibniz Center for Law,          Faculty of Law
University of Amsterdam,            PO Box 1030
1000 BA  Amsterdam,             The Netherlands
-----------------------------------------------



>
>
> 2009/3/18 Rinke Hoekstra <hoekstra@uva.nl>:
>> Hi Christine,
>>
>> Thanks for the update! I just noticed that the NF&R refers only to  
>> the
>> direct semantics, and not to the RDF-based semantics. Is this  
>> intentional?
>>
>> Best,
>>
>>        Rinke
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------
>> Drs. Rinke Hoekstra
>>
>> Email: hoekstra@uva.nl    Skype:  rinkehoekstra
>> Phone: +31-20-5253497
>> Web:   http://www.leibnizcenter.org/users/rinke
>> Visit: Kloveniersburgwal 48,       room ET1.09c
>>
>> Leibniz Center for Law,          Faculty of Law
>> University of Amsterdam,            PO Box 1030
>> 1000 BA  Amsterdam,             The Netherlands
>> -----------------------------------------------
>>
>> On 18 mrt 2009, at 08:51, Christine Golbreich wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all
>>>
>>> A revised version of NF&R is available at [1]. There has been so  
>>> many
>>> changes that it's difficult to list all.
>>>
>>> A lot of changes, additions, or rewording have been done at  
>>> different
>>> places to address both internal and external specific comments  
>>> (mixed
>>> in LC). Thus, the document has been extended at many places to  
>>> better
>>> document the motivation for the new features of OWL 2 see for  
>>> example
>>> [4]. Furthermore, a new Section 2 (see below) has been added to  
>>> better
>>> motivate/clarify some design choices (e.g. OWL/XML etc.).
>>>
>>> - the document has been restructured, and is now organized into 3
>>> sections:
>>>  1. 'Features & Rationale' describes the main features that are new
>>> in OWL 2, numbered from 1 to 15, and more minor differences from  
>>> OWL 1
>>> that manifest themselves in the structural specification [OWL 2
>>> Specification] of OWL 2.
>>>  2. 'Other Design Choices and Rationale' motivates other important
>>> design choices, mainly regarding OWL 2 syntax.
>>>  3. 'Illustrative Use Cases' summarizes via tables the links between
>>> use cases, requirements, and examples used for illustration of new
>>> features.
>>>  At end, an Appendix provides an abstract of each Use Case and its
>>> reference in an Appendix.
>>>
>>> - the grammatical constructs have been removed and replaced by an
>>> informal syntax (asserted to be 'informative').
>>> (however, if  the WG decides to have them but as optional, it's  
>>> still
>>> easy to activate a buttom to hide/show them)
>>>
>>> - the full typed syntax has been re-introduced
>>>
>>> - there are 'warnings' at many place to address "normativity"  
>>> concerns.
>>>
>>> -  the purpose of UCs has been better explained. We insist more on  
>>> the
>>> fact that the given UCs are illustrative (used to illustrate a
>>> specific feature of OWL 2)  and that they are only a few among many
>>> that motivated the extensions. [2] and the tables that summarize the
>>> UCs are better commented. UC#3 has been changed. The references of  
>>> the
>>> UCs are now separated from the other ones and included in the
>>> Appendix.
>>>
>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/New_Features_and_Rationale
>>> [2]
>>> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/New_Features_and_Rationale#Illustrative_use_cases
>>> [3]
>>> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/New_Features_and_Rationale#Use_Cases_.2F_Features_.2F_Examples
>>> [4]
>>> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/ 
>>> New_Features_and_Rationale#F6:_Reflexive.2C_Irreflexive. 
>>> 2C_Asymmetric
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> --
>>> Christine
>>
>>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Christine

Received on Friday, 20 March 2009 08:49:15 UTC