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

ACTION-308 Review QRG

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 12:25:05 +0000
Message-Id: <B8E16267-5DD0-4AB6-B900-9895DBFCA1E8@cs.man.ac.uk>
To: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
My review is predicated on one condition: that the HTML layout ends  
up in 3 column, two page format. That was my understanding when we  
agreed to this document, and that continues to be my understanding.  
If that is going to be changed, we need a WG decision.

I would like that the notational conventions be a bit more  
interactive. First:

"""We use the following notation conventions: unless stated  
otherwise, "C" is an OWL class, "D" is a data range, "P" and "Q" are  
object properties, "R" and "S" are data properties, "i" is an OWL  
individual, "u" and "v" are literals, "n" is a non-negative integer.  
All names may have subscripts. "[a1  an]" stands for a list."""

doesn't mention "x", which I presume is a bnode. Perhaps "_" would be  
better? In any case, it needs definition.

Second, it'd be nice if when I moused over "C" I got a tooltip saying  
"C is a class expression".

Typo: s/if D presents/if D is present/

For the highlighting of new stuff, I'd prefer if the whole line were  

Typo s/reificated form/reified form/

2.9 should have some indication of when the reified form can/should  
be used.

I think a little diagram or example would maybe work better for the  
global restricitons. Otherwise, I'd just make a pointer to the full  
account..I'm skeptical that people can follow it. Esp. as the  
conditions mix in property and non property ones.

4.1 needs to be updated (e.g., owl:realPlus must go)

I think that the facets and the datatypes might be meaningfully  
combined. I think it's more important to show what the facets *are*  
rather than the syntax of the facets.

Received on Monday, 23 March 2009 12:21:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:10 UTC