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

Quick review of QRG

From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 15:42:59 +0100
Message-Id: <842DEBBE-C34B-4A10-9051-EF490A65A4DF@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Cc: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
To: Jie Bao <baojie@cs.rpi.edu>
Summary: Thanks for all the hard work. Looks much better in general  
modulo being able to get the printing right.


1) I fixed a few minor formatting and typographical issues.

2) Editor's Note: Christine suggested to use the same naming  
convention as in Syntax, e.g., CE, DR, OPE, DPE, a and lt. We  
discussed this briefly last week and agreed to retain the current  
slightly more compact notation.

3) Editor's Note: There are some links that are currently missing in  
Primer. Is this still the case?

4) I suggest removing the rather technical explanation about facets  
at the beginning of section 3.2 -- this isn't appropriate for QRG. I  
already commented it out.

5) I suggest re-ordering the columns in the facets table by swapping  
columns 2 and 3. The first two columns will then be what is typically  
required for QR purposes (facet and value) with the 3rd and 4th  
columns being "documentation". I also suggest changing the title of  
the 3rd column to "Applicable Datatypes". I think that the whole will  
then be sufficiently clear so as to obviate the necessity for the  
explanation (see 4 above).

6) The comment "New features in OWL 2 are (with links to New Features  
and Rationale)" seems pointless given that the title of the section  
is "New Features in OWL 2". I commented it out.

7) I doubt if "The following vocabulary is provided in OWL 1 but not  
encouraged in OWL 2." id needed in section 4.2 given that the title  
of the section is "Deprecated vocabularies in OWL 2".
Received on Tuesday, 5 May 2009 14:43:45 UTC

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