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

[SE] more feedback to new note

From: Daniel Oberle <oberle@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 12:21:29 +0200
Message-ID: <434A40A9.7070208@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de>
To: Holger Knublauch <holger@SMI.Stanford.EDU>
CC: public-swbp-wg@w3.org

Hi Holger,
here is some more feedback to our note (version 10/06):

- in general the note seems a bit repetitive sometimes.
   You do a nice job in explaining RDF/OWL by examples already
   in sec 2. After reading sec 2, I already feel introduced
   to RDF/OWL but then sec 3 follows! I don't know if this is bad
   it just hit me when reading.

- there is no real introduction/definition of the word ontology.
   You explain it shortly in Sec 2. Shouldn't we give it more focus?
   Then we could also mention my other comment on the difference
   between UML and ontologies in purpose.

- which screenshot to take: Protege and/or Semanticworks and/or Ontostudio ?
   we should clarify that in the next telco.

- in section 3.1 you digress a bit from the actual purpose of
   introducing RDFS. Especially when you write "But let us now turn back to
   RDF ...". That let's me infer that there is stuff in this section that
   should be somewhere else. In fact you are discussing differences between
   SW and OO languages in general. We should factor that out as a service
   for the reader in a new (sub)section or put it in 3.3. There we could also introduce
   ontologies a bit more and highlight the aforementioned difference in purpose.

- the table in section 3.3 shows the differences between OO and OWL.
   Row 1 is a similarity. Maybe we should take it out of the table in the text before.

- there are no references so far. Apart from the appendix we should reference
   common literature when we talk about the Semantic Web or ontologies.


Some writing hints:
- make it easier -> facilitate (better in most cases)
- like -> such as (better in most cases)
- certain -> specific (better in most cases)
- btw, it's "JavaServer Pages" not "Java Server Pages" ;-)
- in Sec 1 "... those parts that we need" -> "the parts we need"
- in Sec 1 you write "... to interface ..."
   Is there such a verb?
- in Sec 1 "... degree of interoperability built-in" -> "built in"
- between -> among, when there are more than two
- "The vision behind the Semantic Web is to make internet content
    maching-UNDERSTANDABLE"
- Sec 2: over-ambituous -> overambitious
- "The promise of reusability  ..." - URIs and co were mentioned before
- Sec 3: "... that that ..."
- Sec 3: don't use "by the way"

Best,
  Daniel
Received on Monday, 10 October 2005 10:21:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:09:44 UTC