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

Re: QA Review of owl-semantics

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 01 May 2003 10:08:10 -0500
To: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Cc: public-webont-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <1051801689.6599.267.camel@dirk.dm93.org>

On Wed, 2003-04-30 at 15:14, Karl Dubost wrote:
> Dear OWL WG,
> 
> This is the QA Review on the following document
> 
> OWL Web Ontology Language
> Semantics and Abstract Syntax
> W3C Working Draft 31 March 2003
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-owl-semantics-20030331/
> 
> 
> The review is on the Web:
> 	http://www.w3.org/QA/2003/04/QA-Rev-owl-semantics-all

Thanks for your review. Some of your comments are more relevant
to other parts of the OWL specification, so I'm providing
pointers here.

In any case, you raise some points that I can't answer fully
without further discussion with the editors and WG, but
here's a start of a response...




| 1.1 The introduction doesn't say what are the application fields of
| the language. What are the possible usages of it.

Application fields and possible usages of OWL are discussed at
length in

  Web Ontology Language (OWL) Use Cases and Requirements
  http://www.w3.org/TR/webont-req/

The semantics introduction says...

  "This document is designed to be read by those interested in
  the technical details of OWL. It is not particularly intended
  for the casual reader, who should probably first read the
  OWL Guide [OWL Guide]."
  -- http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/#1

but... hmm... it doesn't mention the use cases/requirements
document, and nor do I see a reference from [OWL Guide].
I'll discuss possible improvements with the editors/WG.


| 2.2 You didn't define the conformance requirements for each class
| of products and you do not have at all a conformance section.

| 3.1 you don't define the minimal requirement even if you
| could because it seems you have levels.

| 3.4 NO
| 3.5 NO

| 13.1 How one defines that he has done the right thing? How one
| knows what he must implement or not?

| 13.2 you don't define the minimal requirement even if you could
| because it seems you have levels.

| 13.4 Provide a fast way to find conformance information NO

Conformance requirements are covered in

  OWL Web Ontology Language Test Cases
  http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-test/

which is unfortunately not yet part of the last call materials.

in particular, please take a look at section 4. Conformance (Normative)
  http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-test/#conformance


| 9.1 You should define if the extension are allowed or not.

Hmm... I think this is covered, but I can't find any particular
text in our spec that covers it. I'll have to look around
some more and talk with the editors/WG.


| 13.2 You do not define the section of your documents which are
| normative BUT you defined the informative ones. Please add
| after each section, not only the table of contents a sentence
| to indicate that this part is normative, or that part is informative.

I'll discuss that with the editors/WG.


| 1.4 Provide examples. NO: The section example in your document is
| more about usage scenario. See below.

Extensive examples are provided in the guide; the semantics
document says:

  "This document is designed to be read by those interested in
  the technical details of OWL. It is not particularly intended
  for the casual reader, who should probably first read the
  OWL Guide [OWL Guide]."
  -- http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/#1


| 14.1 NO: You have a test suite, but you don't provide in this
| document a way to know what is testable.

| 14.2 Provide a mapping between the specification and the
| test assertions list NO: You don't have this list.

I'll discuss these with the editors and WG.



> General Comments
> 
> These comments do not relate to the QA Spec Guidelines specifically, 
> but have been made when evaluating and reading the OWL Semantics 
> Specification. You can ignore them if you choose to do it.

I leave those to the semantics editor(s).


> 
> Metanames
>      use meta name in your code source
> Acronyms
>      use acronym with a title to explain your acronym
> Style/Level
>      In the introduction, you talked about "several styles of OWL", 
> when it seems to be level.
> Illustration
>      It may be interesting for the reader to have a graphics of what 
> you have explained in the introduction. From the reading, it doesn't 
> "jump at your face" what you really mean.
> Clarity of expression and presentation
> 
>      Often your specification will gain by establishing a clearer 
> language. Your text if often too crowded and it makes difficult to 
> articulate the concepts.
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 1 May 2003 15:40:42 GMT

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