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

Re: Review of Primer

From: Pascal Hitzler <hitzler@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 22:27:36 +0200
Message-ID: <4A131638.1050105@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de>
To: Mike Smith <msmith@clarkparsia.com>
CC: Sebastian Rudolph <rudolph@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de>, W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Thanks, Mike. Re. Section 9 you are right that the distinction between 
semantics and syntax was not quite crisp yet. Please have a look at the 
new version (and the diff: 
<http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Primer&diff=23973&oldid=23934>), 
which should be much clearer now. Any further feedback is apprechiated.

We're still working on the rest of your comments.

Best Regards,

Pascal.


Mike Smith schrieb:
> 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.
> 

-- 
PD Dr. Pascal Hitzler
Institute AIFB, University of Karlsruhe (TH), 76128 Karlsruhe
email: hitzler@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de    fax: +49 721 608 6580
web:   http://www.pascal-hitzler.de   phone: +49 721 608 4751
Springer Lehrbuch:      http://www.semantic-web-grundlagen.de
Received on Tuesday, 19 May 2009 20:28:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 May 2009 20:28:16 GMT