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 10:07:59 -0400
Message-ID: <4A140EBF.6060507@ksl.stanford.edu>
To: Sebastian Rudolph <rudolph@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de>
CC: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>, dlm@cs.rpi.edu
Sebastian Rudolph wrote:
> Dear Deborah,
> Am 20.05.2009 um 12:28 schrieb Deborah L. McGuinness:
>> thanks for the updates. i notice that
>> 1 - the references list still needs to be updated to include all of 
>> the documents referenced.
> That's true, we will address this by tonight.
>> 2 - my comment 5.1 got in but 5.2 did not and should.
> Personally we are agnostic about having that in there, but just as a 
> general question: is it good practice to hint to "old" OWL documents? 
> If we got the OWL 2 WG spirit right, the documents are mostly intended 
> to be stand-alone and not refer to former OWL 1 documents. I guess, if 
> we were to say what current documents replace what earlier OWL 1 
> documents this should perhaps be done uniformly in the Overview? Thus, 
> we would like to refer the decision on that to tonight's telco.
i think this one is important to put in since although this was exactly 
what i disagreed strongly with in the initial f2f at manchester (and 
still would strongly have preferred that we took the route I was 
the owl 2 primer now does replace section 3 of the owl 1 overview along 
with the OWL 1 guide.

although i gave up fighting the battle to have a separate shorter 
document with the simpler examples provided in the owl overview and then 
the longer guide as a separate document, i think  now it should be 
acknowledged that the primer  replaced those.  it is the appropriate 
place to mention it where we mention the owl 1 differences but the 
mention just to the nf&r is not adequate since that is only mentioning 
the differences between the language features and not telling people 
about the document replacement strategy.

>> what is the plan for the issues with sections 9 and 10?
>> 10 is linked to the issues with the profiles document as well.
> Actually they have already been adressed as well (see the bottom of 
> our response email, where you can also fnd the corresponding diffs).
> With best regards
>    Sebastian
>> 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
> _________________________________________________
> 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 Wednesday, 20 May 2009 14:08:29 UTC

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