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

Re: OWL Reference comment - RDF Schema for OWL

From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 18:16:37 +0100
To: Guus Schreiber <schreiber@cs.vu.nl>
Cc: public-webont-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <20030623181637.24ed7e46.dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>

On Thu, 19 Jun 2003 23:43:07 +0100
Guus Schreiber <schreiber@cs.vu.nl> wrote:

> From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
> Subject: Re: OWL Reference comment - RDF Schema for OWL
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webont-comments/2003May/0082.html
> 
>   > On Mon, 12 May 2003 14:19:59 +0200
>   > Guus Schreiber <schreiber@cs.vu.nl> wrote:

<snip/>

> Dave,
> 
> The role of the RDF Schema is to give ontology builders and tool
> developers structured information about the OWL vocabulary.
> In Sec. 1.7 the role of Appendix B is explained as follows:
> 
> [[
> Appendix B contains an RDF schema for the OWL language
> constructs. This schema provides information about the OWL vocabulary
> in a form that can be understood by RDF Schema
> processors. Conventionally, classes have a leading uppercase
> character; properties a leading lowercase character. Thus,
> owl:Ontology is a class, and owl:imports is a property. Appendix C
> gives a tabular overview of all OWL language constructs in terms of
> the built-in OWL classes and properties (the latter with their domain
> and range).
> 
> NOTE: The RDF Schema file for OWL is not expected to be imported
> explicitly (i.e., with owl:imports) into an ontology. The schema has
> an informative status and is meant to provide the classes and
> properties to be used in the RDF/XML syntax. . People that do
> import this schema should expect the resulting ontology to be an OWL
> Full ontology.
> ]]
> 
> We suggest the second sentence could have been phrased more clearly as
> follows:
> 
> [[
> This schema provides information about the OWL vocabulary that could
> be a useful reference point for ontology builders and tool
> developers. The restrictions provided by the schema on the OWL classes
> and properties are informative and not complete.  Also, this schema
> does not make distinctions between OWL Full, OWL DL and OWL Lite.
> ]]
> 
> [The last sentence was moved forward from the NOTE..]


Can you please link to 1.7 from appendix B.  If you go to the appendix,
there is no path back to that much earlier declaration. Web documents
aren't always read serially!   I didn't see that paragraph.  Words about
the purpose of this section would better live in the section itself.


<snip/>

> The editor's draft [1] contains the suggested changes.
> 
> Thansk againg for the comment. Please let us know, cc-ing 
> public-webont-comments@w3.org, whether this response is satisfactory.
> 
> Guus
> 
> 
> [1] http://www.daml.org/2002/06/webont/owl-ref-proposed

Some suggestions

In AppB, "The RDF/XML ..." would read better.

It would be nice to know if it is intended to be put behind the
URI &owl; eventually ends at http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl
(or whatever).  That is likely to be the most useful way to
use this document, than appended in a WD, and that
it isn't intended to be owl:imported.

However, overall: this response is satisfactory.

Dave
Received on Monday, 23 June 2003 13:16:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:43:29 GMT