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

Re: [SE] more feedback to new note

From: Holger Knublauch <holger@SMI.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 11:55:47 +0100
Message-ID: <434A48B3.8090609@smi.stanford.edu>
CC: public-swbp-wg@w3.org

Daniel Oberle wrote:
> 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.

I agree, we need to streamline the flow in the future.

> - 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.

That may be a philosophical question for the paper.  In one of the calls 
I already mentioned my belief that the term ontology may have a bad 
sound to some communities, and I would prefer to use a term that OO 
people already know, such as "domain model".  For the paper, we take 
knowledge of OO for granted and try to attract OO developers by building 
bridges into unfamiliar terrain.  A term like ontology does not 
necessarily help in this respect.  We should definitely use it, but I 
wouldn't put it to the center.

Also, I am not sure I agree that ontologies are built for a totally 
different purpose than OO domain models.  In many cases, even OWL 
ontologies contain "simple" class definitions to describe data 
containers (like customer's email adresses).  Such classes don't 
necessarily need to be completely generic and don't need to define a 
shared understanding.  They can, but they can also be used to build data 
structures so that conventional OO classes can be easier hooked in, and 
to have a nice XML serialization.

> - 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.

All these are good points, for future iterations of the note.

> 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"

Thanks - all much appreciated and built in :)

Received on Monday, 10 October 2005 10:56:15 UTC

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