W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webont-comments@w3.org > April 2003

RE: Language Guide Comments

From: Smith, Michael K <michael.smith@eds.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 08:47:47 -0500
Message-ID: <B8E84F4D9F65D411803500508BE32214159B403B@USPLM207>
To: "Lacy . Lee" <LLacy@drc.com>, public-webont-comments@w3.org

Lacy,

Thanks again for your comments. In this message I have tried
to either answer your questions or propose an editorial change that I 
think addresses them.  Please reply to the mailing list as to whether 
the above changes adequately address your comments.

> Here are some minor (mostly editorial) OWL Language Guide
> Comments/Suggestions:

> Section 2, paragraph 2, change "addtion" to "addition".

Done.

> Section 2 namespace examples are identified as "typical", yet they are 
> all w3.org URIs.  Most implementers will have non-w3.org URIs for 
> their ontology files.

I meant the structure was "typical", not the content. Added

  Of course, the URI's of the defined ontologies will not usually be
  w3.org references.

> Section 2.2, paragraph beginning "One common", change "here are the 
> some" to "here are some".

Done.

> Section 3.4.3, change "this is" to "hasValue is".

Might be confusing.  The example is an owl:Restriction that hasValue is 
contained in.  So we don't want to refer to hasValue as a restriction.

> Section 7.1, change "Many of sites" to "Sites".

Changed to "Many sites"

> In section 4.2, the discussion on "sameAs" and "sameIndividualAs" is 
> confusing.  The guide recommends using "sameIndividualAs", but the 
> reference document, section 5.2, says that "sameIndividualAs" is 
> supported for "historical reasons".

I introduced sameIndividualAs first because I wanted to introduce the
simpler notion before talking about sameAs with respect to classes.

The Reference editor and I have agreed that the Reference will strike
the "for historical reasons" wording.

> Section 3.1.3 helps explain a difficult concept of mixing classes and 
> instances.  The example is very helpful, but it seems that someone 
> would name a class "GrapeVarietal" to help reduce confusion.

This naming has a lot to do with simplicity in the presentation of the 
ontology. We didn't want to get into a lengthy discussion of what a 
varietal was before we introduced grape.  In a mature ontology I think 
you are right.  But for now I propose to leave it as 'grape'.


- Mike

Michael K. Smith, Ph.D., P.E.
EDS - Austin Innovation Centre
98 San Jacinto, #500
Austin, TX  78701

phone: +01-512-404-6683
email: michael.smith@eds.com




-----Original Message-----
From: Lacy . Lee [mailto:LLacy@drc.com] 
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2003 3:30 PM
To: public-webont-comments@w3.org
Subject: Language Guide Comments



Here are some minor (mostly editorial) OWL Language Guide
Comments/Suggestions:

Section 2, paragraph 2, change "addtion" to "addition".
Section 2 namespace examples are identified as "typical", yet they are all
w3.org URIs.  Most implementers will have non-w3.org URIs for their ontology
files. Section 2.2, paragraph beginning "One common", change "here are the
some" to "here are some". Section 3.4.3, change "this is" to "hasValue is".
Section 7.1, change "Many of sites" to "Sites".

In section 4.2, the discussion on "sameAs" and "sameIndividualAs" is
confusing.  The guide recommends using "sameIndividualAs", but the reference
document, section 5.2, says that "sameIndividualAs" is supported for
"historical reasons".

Section 3.1.3 helps explain a difficult concept of mixing classes and
instances.  The example is very helpful, but it seems that someone would
name a class "GrapeVarietal" to help reduce confusion.
Received on Tuesday, 29 April 2003 09:48:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:43:28 GMT