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

RE: OWL Full Features in QRG

From: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 22:21:23 +0200
Message-ID: <0EF30CAA69519C4CB91D01481AEA06A001394128@judith.fzi.de>
To: "Jie Bao" <baojie@gmail.com>, "Peter F.Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jie Bao [mailto:baojie@gmail.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 8:01 PM
>To: Peter F.Patel-Schneider; Michael Schneider
>Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
>Subject: Re: OWL Full Features in QRG
>Peter and Michael
>Will you object to replace section 4.2 with the one "Additional
>Vocabulary in OWL 2 RDF Syntax" on the discussion page?

Well, since I am asked...

What would I expect from such a card (I admit that I did not ponder much
about QRG in the past)? Thinking more generally, what I would expect from
other languages (a card for HTML for example), yes, I think as long as it is
technically possible (enough space on the card), I would want to have /all/
language features mentioned on it, even if they are "rarely used", "legacy"
or even "deprecated". 

Because it is quite possible that I want to / have to use this card when
working with old ontologies. I wouldn't really want to have the "special"
features in a separate section, but rather along with the other features
belonging to the same category. But I would appreciate if there were a
*small* marker placed nearby a feature telling what's special with them. For
example, if a term is deprecated, I would consider this relevant knowledge
for my work, e.g., even if I were required to leave the old term in the
ontology for the moment, I won't add additional occurrences, and could plan
for a future redesign. 

Such a card is good for learning by doing: One looks something up once or
twice when one stumbles over it, and afterwards one knows about it and its
special aspects, but still have the helpful card around, if one forgets
about it again. But then it would be un-helpful if some terms were not
mentioned in the card.

So to summarize: I would keep the terms in, and even along with the other
terms (no separate section), but with some marker ("D" = "deprecated" for
DataRange, "L" = "legacy" for most others, perhaps really "R" = "RDF-Based
Semantics" for OntologyProperty (not clear on this)).


Dipl.-Inform. Michael Schneider
Research Scientist, Dept. Information Process Engineering (IPE)
Tel  : +49-721-9654-726
Fax  : +49-721-9654-727
Email: michael.schneider@fzi.de
WWW  : http://www.fzi.de/michael.schneider
FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik an der Universität Karlsruhe
Haid-und-Neu-Str. 10-14, D-76131 Karlsruhe
Tel.: +49-721-9654-0, Fax: +49-721-9654-959
Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts, Az 14-0563.1, RP Karlsruhe
Vorstand: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Rüdiger Dillmann, Dipl. Wi.-Ing. Michael Flor,
Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Wolffried Stucky, Prof. Dr. Rudi Studer
Vorsitzender des Kuratoriums: Ministerialdirigent Günther Leßnerkraus

Received on Wednesday, 20 May 2009 20:22:05 UTC

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