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

Re: Primer Review

From: Deborah L. McGuinness <dlm@ksl.stanford.edu>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 06:28:47 -0400
Message-ID: <4A13DB5F.8020705@ksl.stanford.edu>
To: Sebastian Rudolph <rudolph@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de>
CC: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
thanks for the updates. 
i notice that
1 - the references list still needs to be updated to include all of the 
documents referenced. 
2 - my comment 5.1 got in but 5.2 did not and should.

what is the plan for the issues with sections 9 and 10?
10 is linked to the issues with the profiles document as well.

unfortunately i am not able to be on the telecon today but it would be 
useful to have an email about the plan to address my comments on section 
9 and 10.

thanks,
deborah

Sebastian Rudolph wrote:
> Dear Deborah,
>
> many thanks for your thorough review and your helpful suggestions.
> We implemented most of them as suggested. 
> The diff
>
> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Primer&diff=23739&oldid=23695 
> <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Primer&diff=23739&oldid=23695>
>
> should contain mainly the changes made in response to your 
> comments for all sections except 9 and 10.
> Please find some specific comments below inline.
>
> With best regards
>  Sebastian
>
>>
>>        1. After we mention “most of the language features” add a
>>           sentence saying for a listing of language features, see the
>>           Quick Reference document which then provides links into the
>>           appropriate sections of the appropriate documents concerning
>>           syntax and examples.
> We added an according remark to Section 1.1, where we also refer to 
> the NF&R document.
>>  7. On “ … all four syntaxes “
>>        1. Change to “… all five syntaxes”
> Well, we consider the RDF-based syntax as one syntax having an RDF/XML 
> and a Turtle variant.
>>
>>  9. I find the following open to confusion “In particular, there is no
>>     way to enforce that a certain piece of information (like the
>>     social security number of a person) has to be syntactically present.”
>>        1. One reading of that for me is that min cardinality
>>           restrictions are not there. What I believe this is really
>>           aiming at is the open world assumption so that just because
>>           a ss# is not there now, does not mean it might not be there
>>           later.
> The point is that even a class membership "has some ss#" does not mean 
> that the concrete ss# of that individual has to be recorded in the 
> Ontology (as opposed to e.g. XML Schema). We just know that it has 
> one. That's what we mean by "syntactically present."
>>        2. This paragraph and the next one basically on what owl is not
>>           I think belong buried later – not so far near the beginning
>>           where I think they have more potential to cause confusion
>>           than to help.
> Actually, these paragraphs were requested as kind of "setting the 
> stage" before going into details.
>>
>> 13. On the paragraph starting with “One can use basic algebra….”
>>        1. This feels out of place – it is a more sophisticated notion
>>           than most of the rest of the writing and is only for a
>>           subset of users. It should somehow be noted that most will
>>           want to skip this. It could be a (granted long) footnote.
> Agreed. We will find a way to make this look skippable; that's what 
> the editor's note was made for.  
>>
>> 14. On “Thereby we will represent information about a particular
>>     family. (We do not intend this example to be representative of the
>>     sorts of domains OWL should be used for, or as a canonical example
>>     of good modeling with OWL, or a correct representation of the
>>     rather complex, shifting, and culturally dependent domain of
>>     families. Instead, we intend it to be a rather simple exhibition
>>     of various features of OWL.)”
>>        1. I do not think the parenthetical adds a lot but it does
>>           detract. This is now the third place where it seemed that a
>>           thought was more appropriate for a footnote if it was to be
>>           kept.
> We moved this comment to the parent section, hopefully decreasing the 
> danger of detraction. We actually think this disclaimer should be in 
> place in order to prevent that the sample ontology is conceived as a 
> kind of "modeling best practice" (which it is not).
>
>>
>> 25. In section 7, wow – 200 is a seriously large max for human age. I
>>     would drop it to at least 150.
> Well, you never know what medical progress brings about, but so be it...
>
>>
>> 27. On section 9, I agree with the comment by mike smith on may 13
>>     that this section could use some rework. The intro sentence of 2
>>     ways of thinking about owl 2 seems odd to me as well. I am willing
>>     to re-review when the updated 9 is in.
>
> Yes we have changed this in accordance with Mike's review.
>
> Diff for Section 9: 
> <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Primer&diff=23689&oldid=23628 
> <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Primer&diff=23689&oldid=23628>>
> (note that it also shows the removal of some comments which can be 
> ignored)
>
>>
>> 28. On section 10, I am not sure what goes in this section and what
>>     goes in the owl profiles document. It seems like the main thing I
>>     would want to get on profiles from this document is a sentence or
>>     2 on each profile and why one chooses that profile and a small
>>     example. The current version seems to have too much content and I
>>     agree with mike that complexity class, links to literature, and
>>     history do not belong in this document. I am also willing to
>>     re-review when the update to 10 is in.
>
> We have taken out text on complexity classes, literature links, and 
> history. The remaining text aids in the choice of profile and points 
> out some of the language features. As for the examples, they are 
> already quite short, consisting of 4-6 axioms each: With less, it's 
> not possible to get a minimum of the expressivity accross.
>
> Diff for Section 10: 
> <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Primer&diff=23695&oldid=23689 
> <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 <mailto:rudolph@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de>  
>   phone +49 (0)721 608 7362
> www.sebastian-rudolph.de <http://www.sebastian-rudolph.de>             
>     fax +49 (0)721 608 5998
>
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 20 May 2009 10:29:09 UTC

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