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

Re: Review of Primer

From: Sebastian Rudolph <rudolph@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de>
Date: Sat, 16 May 2009 18:40:54 +0200
Cc: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <5D03DD3B-7EF9-4144-A7C9-01FA54CBE289@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de>
To: Michel_Dumontier <Michel_Dumontier@carleton.ca>

Dear Michel,

thanks a lot for your review. We have thoroughly considered all your  
comments and tried to address them.
Please bear with us for not having implemented all your replacement  
text suggestions word by word, however we tried to detect your  
concerns behind those suggestions and to adress them apropriately.

Diff of Sections 1-8 addressing your suggestions:

Diff for Section 10: <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Primer&diff=23695&oldid=23689 

With best regards,

Find some specific comments below.
> Review of the OWL 2 Primer (WD 21/04/09)
> ---------------------------------------
> 1.
> * "the buttons below can be used to show or hide all four syntaxes" ->
> five syntaxes
> * the syntax buttons aren't immediately linked to syntax examples,  
> so a
> user wouldn't understand the differences between them and wouldn't
> choose between any of them at this point. On first exposure (4 -
> classes, instances), unclear which syntax each box refers to, but the
> user would have to scroll up to hide the syntax, go check which was
> changed, etc.
Meanwhile, the boxes have been endowed with labels indicating the  

> *** the Happy example is really obfuscated -> we should stay with  
> named
> classes and build on previous defs

Yes, it may be confusing to have a complex class description on the  
left hand side, so we adapted the example. However, in OWL, "circular"  
statements (or in DL-parlance: cyclic Tboxes) are allowed and extend  
the modelling capabilities. In our example, we wanted to provide an  
example for this (hence describing "HappyPerson" using   
"HappyPerson"). Thus we deliberately deviated from building on  
previous defs.

Section 10:
> * Remove most of the current text - it's really not accessible because
> it introduces huge amounts of new and unexplained terminology that is
> unrelated to what precedes it

We have done this.

> * I think there would be more value in treating OWL 2 DL, Full, EL, RL
> and QL all as profiles of the OWL language.

We actually had considered this when we started working on the primer  
but decided against it. We think the exhibition is much more concise  
as it is now, and fits the OWL 2 document set (where OWL 2 DL is not  
explicitly introduced as a profile).

> * A table that compares the profile features, and the additional
> interpretation for FULL

To be entirely honest, I (Pascal) would very much like to come up with  
a readable table which presents the differences in a nice and  
accessible way. But the more I think about it, the less I like it. The  
profiles are simply too orthogonal. I'd be very happy about a concrete  
suggestion what such a table would look like - and if it is  
satisfactory, I'd be very happy to incorporate this.

> * Use one example to illustrate the support for/differences between  
> the
> profiles with an axiom annotation - and make the idea of profiles more
> accessible. Either start with a weaker profile and successively add  
> more
> constructs, or summarizes the support in one example.

This is a nice idea but since the profiles EL, QL, RL are not layered,  
I think this way of presenting it is more confusing than helpful. It  
would either turn out to be mainly a merge of three disjoint sets of  
axioms, or it would be an example which is unneccessarily blown up (by  
forcing axioms into the example which lie in two or all three of the  
profiles). The exhibition seems to be much clearer as it is - and it  
also brings the point accross that the profiles should be thought of  
as orthogonal to each other.

> * comparisons with RDFS precedes its  description

I do not quite understand this comment?

Diff for Section 10: <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Primer&diff=23695&oldid=23689 

Dr. Sebastian Rudolph
Institute AIFB, University of Karlsruhe, D-76128 Karlsruhe
rudolph@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de    phone +49 (0)721 608 7362
www.sebastian-rudolph.de                 fax +49 (0)721 608 5998
Received on Saturday, 16 May 2009 16:42:11 UTC

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