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

Re: Quick review of QRG

From: Jie Bao <baojie@cs.rpi.edu>
Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 15:37:14 -0400
Message-ID: <b6b357670905051237w17b907f8hc73b152549c167b7@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Cc: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>

I made changes based on your suggestion. More inline


On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Ian Horrocks
<ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
> Summary: Thanks for all the hard work. Looks much better in general modulo
> being able to get the printing right.
> Details:
> 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.
thus, I removed the note

> 3) Editor's Note: There are some links that are currently missing in Primer.
> Is this still the case?
Sebastian has explained those features are beyond what Primer is
supposed to cover. Thus I removed the note. Since the current
introduction is "the first column provides links to the Primer (if
applicable)", I think it's clear not all features will have links to

> 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.
Thanks for taking care of it.

> 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".
Peter has suggested to change the title to "Compatibility Vocabulary" and put
everything that is not generated by the FS -> RDF mapping in this
section. I would have it discussed this Wed.


Jie Bao
Received on Tuesday, 5 May 2009 19:37:55 UTC

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