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

OWL working drafts - feedback

From: Emery, Pat <pemery@grci.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 22:27:19 -0400
Message-ID: <4E4858A8C481D5119DA100B0D0796B8219B13A@thumper.va.grci.com>
To: "'public-webont-comments@w3.org'" <public-webont-comments@w3.org>
Cc: "'patemery@att.com'" <patemery@att.com>

Overall I think Owl looks good.  Some Specific comments follow.

Feature Synopsis specific comments:

Recommend reducing references to DAML+OIL in OWL Feature-Synopsis document.
All warnings and limitations should be listed in the owl document.

Owl-lite struck me as not such a good idea.  Not sure about the name
especially. Maybe change owl-lite to owl 1.0 and owl to owl 2.0 beta.
Overall I think the goal is to use owl and have owl-lite as a stepping stone
for tool developers/user communities.  "Lite" to me implies a choice of
necessary features rather than a stepping stone. Owl version 1.0 would imply
eventual movement to higher conformance.

The use of Individual for "objects that belong to classes" while
semantically correct leads very easily to confusion with its definition
pertaining particularly to people.  The confusion is further reinforced by
the use of people in the examples in the Feature Synopsis.  I favor the use
of the word "Object" but other potential words to use instead of Individual
are: Item, Thing, Entity, Occurrence, Singleton, Solitare.

In the Feature Synopsis under the individual description.  A statement says
to see the reference description document for the exact syntax for defining
individuals.  This statement should apply to the exact syntax for all owl
syntax and should be generalized and moved to a more appropriate location.

Section 1.  Third paragraph.  4th sentence, add missing as, should read:
While it is widely appreciated that all of the features in languages such as

Section 3.3 Transitive Property first paragraph, last sentence missing final

Section 3.3 Functional Property first sentence, add missing a, should read:
Properties may be stated to have a unique value.

Section 3.3 Functional Property fourth sentence, strike extra is, should
read: This has been referred to as a unique value.

Section 3.3 SomeValuesFrom last sentence, add missing period.

Section 3.6 More information is needed on what it means to import something.
If Ontology A only wishes to use term T from Ontology B does Ontology A have
to import Ontology B.  What if Ontology B also contains terms that conflict
with Ontology A or the author of Ontology A does not agree with?

Section 4.  Union Of Example contains a subclass instead of being a direct
complementOf relation.

Section 5. Summary.  There should be an appendix to the Feature Synopsis
showing the owl for all the examples given.

Abstrat Syntax specific comments

Section 1.  Paragraph 4 first Sentence.  Seems to be in Conflict with the
presence of Section 6 in the document.

Section 1.2  First stance:  I think order is a very fundamental thing and
should be treated as a first class issue and not left out.  The consequences
of the decision will be users inventing individual solutions.

Section 3 First Paragraph, last sentence, substitute an for a, should read:
associated with an ontology.

Section 3 Second Paragraph, first sentence, add missing an, should read:
which is a URI reference.

Section 3 Second Paragraph, second sentence, spelling error, should read:
wherever possible.

Section 5 First Paragraph Sentence 1. States Owl and Owl-Lite have been the
same so far but "nothing" has been mentioned and is only present in

Section 5 Fourth Paragraph Sentence 1.  Symmetric is not listed.

Section 5.1.3 Paragraph 3.  The words don't seem to match up with the axiom.
The words seem to "group and or" symmetric, functional and inverseFunctional
but the axiom seems to "group and or" functional, inverseFunctional and

Section 5.3.3 Shouldn't the third cardinality line have max-cardinality be a
positive-integer.  Otherwise this seems to allow min>max where max=0.
Shouldn't there be a statement additionally that states that min < max.

Section 5.2.4 should be Section 5.3.4.

Section 6  DataType Property. Transformation lists owl:uniqueProperty should
be owl:FunctionalProperty?

OWL Web Ontology Language specific comments:

Section 1, Different Syntactic Forms, Fourth Sentence, change singular to
plural, should read:  Such other syntactic forms ...

Section 2 No mention of authoship-etc from Dublin-Core.

Section 2 Class Elements:  disjointUnionOf not in AbstractSyntax or Feature

Section 2 Class Expressions:  Should the boolean combination be rdfs:class
or owl:class tags?

Section 2 Property Restriction.  First Paragraph, last sentence, missing
Object, should read:  neither object restrictions nor datatype Restrictions.

Section 2 Property Restriction. Last Paragraph, Second Sentence, substitute
importance for import, should read:  ...there should be some semantic

Appendix A contains equivalentTo which I think is struck from the features
in Abstract Syntax Section 1.2 Stance
Appendix A contains disjointUnionOf which I think was also struck.

http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl specific comments:

Still contains equivalentTo which I think is struck from the features in
Abstract Syntax Section 1.2 Stance 4.

SameClassAs, SamePropertyAs and SameIndividualAs are defined using
Equivalent To.

Comment for Ontology should read for communication between and among...

Still contain disjointUnionOf which is not in AbstractSyntax or Feature

The comments above are my own.  Any that sound personal are.  Any that sound
technical can be attributed to my company if they will have them.

Pat Emery
Patrick Emery 
AT&T Government Solutions 
1900 Gallows Rd.       Voice (703)506-5259
Vienna, Va 22182       Fax   (703)556-4261
Received on Thursday, 5 September 2002 22:27:25 UTC

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