- From: Christine Golbreich <cgolbrei@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 10:09:50 +0100
- To: Rinke Hoekstra <hoekstra@uva.nl>
- Cc: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>, Evan Wallace <ewallace@cme.nist.gov>
2009/3/20 Rinke Hoekstra <hoekstra@uva.nl>: > 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. Thanks for your feedback on that. As said, I'm just waiting to know what to do. If there is no objection I'll add it. cg >> 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 > > -- Christine
Received on Friday, 20 March 2009 09:10:30 UTC