W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > November 2005

Re: [SE] comments on primer

From: Phil Tetlow <philip.tetlow@uk.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 16:29:17 +0000
To: Holger Knublauch <holger@knublauch.com>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Cc: public-swbp-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF10FFBFC7.0FA100A6-ON802570C8.005654E2-802570C8.00590238@uk.ibm.com>

Holger, Jeremy

Please see my comments below.

Best Regards,

Philip Tetlow
Senior Consultant (Certified Technical Architect)
IBM Business Consulting Services

Mail: IBM United Kingdom Limited, 1175 Century Way, Thorpe Park, Colton,
Leeds, LS15 8ZB
Current Assignment: DWP BPRP (Metadata)
Mobile: +44 (0)7740 923328
Email: philip.tetlow@uk.ibm.com

             Jeremy Carroll                                                
             Sent by:                                                   To 
             public-swbp-wg-re         public-swbp-wg@w3.org               
             quest@w3.org                                               cc 
             15/11/2005 16:51          [SE] comments on primer             

1. Note that David Wood suggested moving para starting "The Semantic Web
community has ..." forward so that it is clearer what the note offers.

Agree (I think), but given that the abstract is now shorter and more
focused on Sem Web languages, I personally think that the preamble in the
introduction is acceptable.

2. It is unclear whether the abstract is appropriate.

Suggest the abstract is shortended to:

Domain models play a central role throughout the software development
cycle, from requirements analysis to design, through implementation and
beyond. As such, great progress has been made in the consistent use of
models throughout this process. Modern software development tools with UML
support and code generation as well as Model-Driven Architectures allow for
developers to synchronize and verify technical implementation with user
requirements using models - the ultimate deliverable of computer code still
only being another form of model at the end of the day. However, there are
still challenges which can be addressed by Semantic Web languages such as
RDF Schema and OWL, which have been optimized to build and reason with
domain models. This note is hence intended to act as an introduction to
Semantic Web technologies for software developers with background in
object-oriented languages like UML and Java. Its aim is to clarify the
differences between RDF/OWL and object-oriented languages, and to encourage
mainstream developers to add Semantic Web technology to their routine tool

3. The reference [MvH 2004] should be [OWL] or similar.


4. The reference [MM 2004] should be [RDF] or similar.


5. Suggest rephrasing of "Semantic Web languages are far more specific."

Perhaps change to "Semantic Web languages are far more formal and
semantically precise"

6. Suggest replace "In contrast to object-oriented languages" with
"In contrast to many object-oriented languages"
("many" could be "well-known" or "most" or "some" or "several"; I prefer

I agree with Jeremy...

7. The para stating "In order to "attach" a property to a class" is not
well-worded, suggest revising for greater clarity and accuracy

Suggest possibly?

In order to "attach" or "associate" a property with a class, rdfs:domain
statements can be used. rdfs:domain is a tag from the RDF Schema namespace
that relates a property to a class using predication. In the example above,
the domain of hasPrice is Product. As such, from an object-oriented point
of view this would mean that all instances of the Product class could have
price values associated with them, hence making Price a Product attribute.
However, in RDF and OWL this also has additional connotations: any resource
that is the object of hasPrice, (i.e. normally a dicreet price value), must
also relate to the subject of Product. In other words, a domain statement
in RDF can be used to classify value instances. Therefore, pointing back to
the above example, if something has a price, then it can be handled as an
instance of Product, even if it partakes in other declarations (or triples)
- a crutial matter that will be discussed in more detail later in the
context of reasoning with OWL.

8. The use of RDF Individual in Figure 6 is useful but misleading, in
that RDF does not provide such a class. owl:Thing is perhaps the
closest. Perhaps the best thing is simply to leave the figure as is but
add a footnote to the effect that RDF Individual is introduced in this
note for explanatory purposes.


Holger...hope this helps
Received on Tuesday, 29 November 2005 16:30:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:09:45 UTC