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

Re: draft responses for four JC LC comments

From: Christine Golbreich <cgolbrei@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 08:27:43 +0200
Message-ID: <b0ed1d660905122327l2053b0f8l8745346a44c25d57@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
2009/5/13 Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>:
>> I've put together draft responses for four of the JC LC comments.
>> See http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Responses_to_Last_Call_Comments for
>> more information.
> A good start.   Some thoughts...
> re JC1 - I had to go back and re-read Jeremy's comment; I had missed
> that he mentioned the namespace, where you only talk about the
> namespace.  I guess I'd add something like: "The Working Group believes
> this new language is the successor to OWL 1, and as such ought to use
> the OWL name."
> re JC2 - very nice
> re JC4 - Jeremy refers to those documents already.  I guess I'd ask him
> in what way these two sections...

Peter's draft is fine.

1) JC1 is based on
which refers to the 02 December 2008  version of NF&R, not current

2) I'd suggest not to spot particular sections in NF&R; "less is more"
here also because:
- JC4 "improved versioning support in OWL2" is not precise
- several sections might be relevant, in particular both sections 2
and section 4

In addition to answer JC4 request "to give an overview of the
improvements", we may want to provide [1] as a pointer for all.
Specific improvements for NF&R are found in  the corresponding section
in [1] :

"This Working Draft has undergone several changes since the version of
02 December 2008

The new features are described in a more friendly syntax which
improves their readability.
Examples are now also given as RDF graphs
The new section "Other Design Choices and Rationale" approaches OWL 2
syntax and backward compatibility
Significant editing makes it more compact and clear. "

[1] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Round_6


>    http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/New_Features_and_Rationale#Features_.26_Rationale
> and
>    http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Quick_Reference_Guide#New_Features_in_OWL_2
> fall short of what he wants, and how (specifically) he'd like them
> changed.  (I don't think there's a New Features bit in Primer any more.)
> re JC5 - I'm trying to understand why the range of owl:predicate needs
> to be unrestricted.  If it were rdf:Statement, then, yes, there'd be an
> entailed triple, but couldn't that triple actually be required/suggested
> in the input.  If this is explained in some e-mail or minutes somewhere,
> or even the spec, it should be linked from JC5.  (I expect this matter
> will be an OWL 2 FAQ, because RDF reification has great associated
> drama.  I'd love a nice written answer, if we do need to keep this.  If
> the domain/range of RDF reification is really just broken [cf your
> message tonight about it], we can fix that using the errata process
> rather than shun RDF reification.)
>     - Sandro

Received on Wednesday, 13 May 2009 06:28:18 UTC

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