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

Re: Quick Review of New Features and Rationale

From: Christine Golbreich <cgolbrei@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 14:54:13 +0200
Message-ID: <b0ed1d660905040554o7f40937dkb12eceedf7b335cc@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org, ewallace@cme.nist.gov
Present  status of NF&R - Update of my earlier response:

>>>  Links to WG documents should use [[...]], not [...].

done

>>> - The examples need to be reformatted to match what is done in the other
>>>  WG documents for multiple syntaxes.

done !!!

>>> - Both references sections need to be fixed up.
I had  removed all authors as asked a while ago. But if it's wanted we
may put the complete references back.
Waiting to know a final decision ... not to switch back and forth again.

>>> - The discussions of each profile need to be turned into sentences.

done

Regarding the (next) comment on "Rationale" and examples of recently
added features
- in absence of feedback from the WG, except Uli (which is yet
included), I improved the rationale as much as I could
- I have also added examples (both SS&FS and RDF) that might habve
been useful/relevant in related UCs already quoted .
- The only feature for which I have not added examples is Data Range
Combinations

Hope this is satisfying.

Christine

2009/4/29 Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>:
> I'm OK with the status of all of these.
>
> I'm satisfied with the reorganization of the new features.  As you say
> it is more difficult to do the optimal ordering now, and not worthwhile.
>
> peter
>
>
> From: Christine Golbreich <cgolbrei@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: Quick Review of New Features and Rationale
> Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 17:14:50 +0200
>
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> Thank you for this review.
>>
>> Quick response :
>>
>> In general, I agree with your comments. However, it is sometimes
>> tricky to conciliate with other constraints, and to integrate the new
>> constructs that have been added recently into the existing
>> organisation, which had its own "logics". In particular, the two main
>> concerns are
>> 1) that the document remains understandable by users without supposing
>> too much background / implicit knowledge. Since we have removed much
>> content/explanation, it is necessary in my view, to  keep for example
>> at least some "headers" or structurantion so as to be  minimally
>> explicit. Only the grammar is short for people who don't know the
>> meaning before.
>> 2) features F1 to F15 are associated to UCs/Examples, serve as
>> motivations, and have been built on the same pattern (see intro of
>> section2)
>> It's why it's a little difficult to insert other content in the
>> middle, even though it might be more logical to have a different order
>> from another point of view . I did my best !
>>
>> I have already implemented the most important. The only point I
>> disagree is to remove the Note before 2.2.4 because it was specially
>> added to answer LC1 comments (namely from Frank, and Jeremy).
>>
>> See below details
>>
>> 2009/4/23 Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>:
>>>
>>>        Quick Review of NF&R
>>>
>>> I reviewed the version of 23 April 2009.
>>>
>>> General Comments:
>>>
>>> - Links to WG documents should use [[...]], not [...].  However, given
>>>  that all the links are there, they might not be worth changing now.
>>
>> will do asap
>>
>>> - The examples need to be reformatted to match what is done in the other
>>>  WG documents for multiple syntaxes.
>>
>> I  have started, see F1 to F4.
>> I mimic the method used in the Syntax, adding FFS and RDF buttons to
>> Hide/Show the 2 syntaxes within the Examples.
>>
>>> - Names in the examples need to be fixed to match the language, i.e.,
>>>  abbreviated IRIs need to be "qualified".
>>
>> not sure what you mean by "qualified" ?
>> do you mean to add  a namespace/prefix e.g.  a:person ? or ":" for
>> each entity or something else?
>> I believe that adding a namespace  ":a" everywhere is heavy and does
>> not bring much, but I can make it if necessary.
>>
>>> - There are too many sub-...-sections and headers in the document.  To
>>>  help this a bit 2.2.2.1 and 2.2.2.2 should not be separate sections,
>>>  nor should there be headers in Section 4.1.2
>>
>> did my best, will stil try to improve at some places, see above
>>
>>> - Section 2.7 is internally self-contradictory.  The first sentence says
>>>  that it doesn't talk about anything that increases expressive power,
>>>  but 2.7.3 is about boolean combinations of data ranges, which does
>>>  increase expressive power.  Section 2.7.3 should be moved to be part
>>>  of Section 2.3, both for this reason and also to move it with the other
>>>  datatype stuff.
>>
>> fixed
>>
>>> - Both references sections need to be fixed up.  Section 6 should be
>>>  ordered.  Many references in Section 7.22 are missing components.
>>>  Each reference to a wiki page should be examined to see if some better
>>>  reference can be found.  If not, both the page and the reference
>>>  should be augmented with as mouch attribution information as possible.
>>
>> still TBD
>>
>>> Specific Comments:
>>>
>>> - The abstract should start "This document presents a simple overview"
>>>
>>> - The paragraph before 2.2.4 could be removed.
>>
>> see above
>>
>>> - The document needs to include the new DisjointDataProperties axiom.
>>
>> done
>>
>>> - The document needs to include datatype definitions, in Section 2.3.
>>
>> done
>>
>>> - Section 2.5 needs significant work.  I suggest the following changes,
>>>  some of which fix mistakes in the document:
>>
>> done
>>
>> did not see what was "significant", please have a look.
>>
>>>  2.5.1 ...
>>>
>>>  ....
>>>
>>>  OWL 2 provides the construct <span class="nonterminal"
>>>  id="a_AnnotationAssertion">AnnotationAssertion</span> for annotations
>>>  on ontologies, entities (such as classes or properties),  and
>>>  anonymous individuals.
>>>  In the OWL 2 Direct Semantics, these annotations
>>>  carry no logical import, allowing the direct use of DL reasoners.
>>>
>>>  <grammar>
>>>  <example>
>>>
>>>  OWL 2 provides the <span class="nonterminal"
>>>  id="a_Annotation">Annotation</span> constructing for annotating axioms
>>>  and other annotations.
>>>  These annotations also
>>>  carry no logical import
>>>  in the OWL 2 Direct Semantics.
>>>
>>>  <grammar>
>>>  <example> - use 'Annotation(rdfs:comment' instead of 'Comment('
>>>
>>>  2.5.2 Axioms for annotation properties
>>>
>>>  Annotation properties can be given domains (<span class="nonterminal"
>>>  id="a_AnnotationPropertyDomain">AnnotationPropertyDomain</span>) and
>>>  ranges (<span class="nonterminal"
>>>  id="a_AnnotationPropertyRange">AnnotationPropertyRange</span>) and
>>>  participate in an annotation property hierarchy (<span
>>>  class="nonterminal">SubAnnotationPropertyOf</span>).
>>>  These constructs
>>>  have no logical import in the OWL 2 Direct Semantics.
>>>
>>>  <grammar> - add domain and range gramma
>>>  <example>
>>>
>>> - The discussions of each profile need to be turned into sentences.
>>>
>>
>> will do (TBD)
>>
>>> Tyopgraphical but Grammatical Erors:
>>
>>> I fixed a number of typographical and minor grammatical errors.  Quite a
>>> few remain, however.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Christine
>



-- 
Christine
Received on Monday, 4 May 2009 12:54:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:12 UTC