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

Re: Review of Primer

From: Mike Smith <msmith@clarkparsia.com>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 10:47:07 -0400
Message-ID: <42485a40905190747p18b0774ftf8c3ab5e1f8e897@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sebastian Rudolph <rudolph@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de>
Cc: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 06:17, Sebastian Rudolph
<rudolph@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de> wrote:
> Dear Mike,
> thank you again for your efforts. Meanwhile, we have addressed your comments
> (and responded to them mainly by editor's notes).
> The diff
> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Primer&diff=23543&oldid=23518
> contains the editorial changes made to Sections 1 - 8.

I am satisfied by the editorial changes.  Please feel free to remove
the notes to prepare the document for publication.

> Some more comments on Sections 9 and 10:
>
> Review comment from MikeSmith 01:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC) This section
> conflates DL / Full as languages and Direct / RDF as semantics. I think that
> it should be reworked to be more careful about the distinction. For
> instance, it is not clear from the text that it is perfectly valid to apply
> the RDF based semantics to an OWL 2 DL ontology
>
> We have rewritten this section and we think it's much clearer now.
>
> Diff for Section
> 9: <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Primer&diff=23689&oldid=23628>
> Note, however, that applying the RDF based semantics to an OWL 2 DL
> ontology does not amount to exactly the same as applying the direct
> semantics - we have also added a remark on this.

This section has improved, but I still feel that it (particularly in
the section name, the third paragraph and the whole fourth paragraph
(including bullets)) conflates syntax constraints and semantics in a
way that is likely to mislead readers.

I would much prefer that OWL DL and Full, as terms, only be used to
refer to syntax and that Direct and RDF-Based be used to refer to
semantics.  I believe that this would make the document more
consistent with the naming decisions that the WG made in response to
LC1 comments.

This may be an appropriate topic for the 2009-05-20 telecon.

> Review comment from MikeSmith 01:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC) I suggest removing
> complexity class information and links to the literature (and origins) from
> the profile descriptions in the subsections. The target audience of this
> document does not need this level of detail, it is difficult to present in a
> way all members of the wg will endorse, and it is already present in the
> Profiles document.
>
> We have done this, i.e. we have taken out the respective parts.

Thanks.

-- 
Mike Smith

Clark & Parsia
Received on Tuesday, 19 May 2009 14:47:48 UTC

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