W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webont-comments@w3.org > August 2002

Comments on Feature Synopsis for OWL Lite and OWL WD 2002-07-29

From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:17:48 +0100
To: public-webont-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <3202.1030025868@hoth.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>

Commenting on http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-owl-features-20020729/

These are mostly document style and formatting comments.



Section 2
   "italicized terms"
not too accessible.  Can you make sure that you demonstrate that by
making the above italicized in the style of the way you use it, or,
better, use some other CSS class and formating to help this.

Cite the RDF and RDFS working drafts.
Link to where the namespaces are defined in those documents.  

Is linking to only the OWL namespace a good idea?  I see there is an
OWL document there, but since this is a feature synopsis, maybe
either link to all of (rdf, rdfs, owl) or none.

I think this should be Dublin Core Metadata Element Set (DCMES)
- add a citation, and possibly to the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI)

Section 3
"in English"!
maybe better as "in prose".  Sometimes these documents get translated.

Make a link from the first use of 'full OWL' to where it is defined


I was wonder if a picture would help with the relationship between
owl class, property, resource and rdf ones.  I saw Pat Hayes made one
in a working document of his:


although I'm not sure of the state of it with the WOWG.

subProperty and <i>rdfs:subProperty</i> seen

The example classes, properties are given without emphasis.  it would
be good to be able to pick out the, say, defined terms in 3.1 Class
so that the classes Mammal, Thing are easier to pick out from the text.
Similiarly for the other 3.1 bullet points and later 3.x sections.



I expect you argued over these actual terms :) but it does stand out
a bit.  Is this going to be easy for non-native English speakers to
grasp?  And are sameIndividualAs and differentIndividualFrom
opposites? (maybe not the right logic word).  If not, better explain more.

later... ah inverseOf.  Are they inverseOf each other?


the two citations under FunctionalProperty need point to references,
then full biblio info there.

" InverseFunctionalProperty (unambiguous)"

What's that in brackets for?  "Properties may be stated to be inverse
functional." doesn't tell me more than reading the term itself.

"  allValuesFrom (toClass in DAML+OIL):"

Make a link please to the toClass in DAML+OIL.  Actually maybe have a
table somewhere else of DAML+OIL to/from OWL mappings?  Maybe two
tables for people interested in seeing what doesn't go both ways?



is this the RFC version of required.  If so, link to the right RFC
and define those terms earlier.  I did this like:

"XSD:decimal" I guess should be "xsd:decimal" in the typical
notation.  Cite XSD, link to the section on decimal.

"See ..." references are not linked.  Now that the WDs are published,
cite them and link to those terms.


"Dublin Core MetaData"
either use the element set - DCMES I mentioned above or the
initiative - DCMI, also above.  Either way, a pointer is nice.

RCS/CVS links to them; if you can find references :)


More "(bracketed)" things after the terms; explai nmore.  Are these
constraints on the uses?  What about the other terms without such


Inconsistent use of formatting.

  rdf:         seen as HTML "rdf: namespace"
    better as <tt>rdf:</tt> since namespaces are XML things?
  rdf:Property seen as HTML "<i>rdf:Property</i>"
  Class        seen as HTML "<i>Class</i> and <b><i>Class</i></b>"  

I'd prefer to see the owl-defined terms be owl:inverseOf etc. for
consistency with the rdf: and rdfs: ones.

Rather see the use of <dl><dt><dd> lists which are for defining terms.

Add anchors for all the defined terms.  People will want to point at
them in this document.

Needs updating for W3C publications style especially citation and
defining of references.

No references section(s)

Cite RDF, RDFS, DAML+OIL, other things mentioned - don't just link to
them in the body text.

Cite other WOWG WDs now that they are available.

Maybe RDF Core WDs too? :)

You might consider a normative / informative references split.
Received on Thursday, 22 August 2002 10:18:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:09:28 UTC