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

RE: Language Guide Comments

From: Lacy . Lee <LLacy@drc.com>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 09:53:21 -0400
Message-ID: <AB085580DA7C9F45A251FF83A313DA380E8DEE@orls01.drc.com>
To: "'Smith, Michael K '" <michael.smith@eds.com>, "Lacy . Lee" <LLacy@drc.com>, "Lacy . Lee" <LLacy@drc.com>, <public-webont-comments@w3.org>

the changes adequately address my comments 

thanks for all your hard work

Lee


-----Original Message-----
From: Smith, Michael K
To: Lacy . Lee; Lacy . Lee; public-webont-comments@w3.org
Sent: 5/12/2003 5:27 PM
Subject: RE: Language Guide Comments

Lee,

Thanks for your further comments. I appreciate the careful scrutiny.
As before, I have tried to either answer your questions or propose 
an editorial change that I think addresses them.

# Thanks for taking the time to consider my comments/suggestions.  I
# concur with all of your responses.

# Here are a few additional "nitpicky" comments/suggestions:

# Section 3.1.1 para. 1 introduces "owl:Nothing" but doesn't caveat that
# it is OWL DL and OWL Full only.

Recently, the WG decided to add owl:Nothing to OWL Lite.
You will see that reflected in revised versions of the other documents.

# Section 3.4 introduces the concept of property restrictions, but
# doesn't explicitly mention the "restriction class" - owl:Restriction.

Changed

 "We do this with property restrictions.  The various 
  forms can only be used within a property restriction. "
to
 "We do this with <i>property restrictions</i>.  The various 
  forms described below can only be used within the context of an 
  owl:Restriction."

# The second sentence of 3.4.1 uses the word instance/instances 3 times,
# and I'm confused about the third use (values of the property) because
# the term "restriction class" is overloaded.  I don't think you're
# referring to the built-in owl:Restriction class, I think you're
# referring to an anonymous class things that have a property "hasMaker"
# whose values belong to the "Winery" class (things made by wineries).

You are right.  To many instances.  Changed

 "The owl:allValuesFrom restriction requires that for every instance of
  the class that has instances of the specified property, the 
  values of the property are all instances of the specified restriction
class."
to
 "The owl:allValuesFrom restriction requires that for every instance of
  the class that has instances of the specified property, the 
  values of the property are all members of the class indicated by the
  owl:allValuesFrom clause."

# I like the inclusion of the element names under the section headings
# (e.g., "sameIndividualAs" under the 4.2 section heading.  However, the
# fonts should be consistent on these (see also 4.3).

Done.

# In section 3.2.1, the two types of properties are distinguished, but
# they are never tied to the owl syntax explicitly.

In 3.2.1 we detail the syntax of owl:ObjectProperty, and then in
3.2.2 we describe owl:DatatypeProperty.  

# The cross-reference before references identifies owl:versionInfo as
# being discussed in section 5.1.2, which is the Union section.  I
# couldn't find any mention of versionInfo, which I expected in the
# Versioning section (6).

Fixed.  The text should have said "6.", not "5.1.2".  
The link does take you to the right place in 6.  

# The cross-reference before references doesn't provide references to
# rdf:List, rdf:nil, rdf:type, and rdf:Property.  It would be helpful to
# at least mention each of these at least briefly in the guide as an
# introduction before readers dive into the reference or semantics
# documents.

There is a link for rdf:type.  The Guide sticks pretty much to the DL
syntax, which does not require the list constructs and rdf:Property.

# I hope this helps.  You and your team have done a great job.
# 
# Lee

Please reply to the mailing list as to whether the above changes 
adequately address your comments.

- 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: Friday, May 02, 2003 8:03 AM
To: Smith, Michael K; Lacy . Lee; public-webont-comments@w3.org
Subject: RE: Language Guide Comments



Mike,

Thanks for taking the time to consider my comments/suggestions.  I
concur
with all of your responses.

Here are a few additional "nitpicky" comments/suggestions:

Section 3.1.1 para. 1 introduces "owl:Nothing" but doesn't caveat that
it is
OWL DL and OWL Full only.

Section 3.4 introduces the concept of property restrictions, but doesn't
explicitly mention the "restriction class" - owl:Restriction.  The
second
sentence of 3.4.1 uses the word instance/instances 3 times, and I'm
confused
about the third use (values of the property) because the term
"restriction
class" is overloaded.  I don't think you're referring to the built-in
owl:Restriction class, I think you're referring to an anonymous class
things
that have a property "hasMaker" whose values belong to the "Winery"
class
(things made by wineries).

I like the inclusion of the element names under the section headings
(e.g.,
"sameIndividualAs" under the 4.2 section heading.  However, the fonts
should
be consistent on these (see also 4.3).

In section 3.2.1, the two types of properties are distinguished, but
they
are never tied to the owl syntax explicitly.

The cross-reference before references identifies owl:versionInfo as
being
discussed in section 5.1.2, which is the Union section.  I couldn't find
any
mention of versionInfo, which I expected in the Versioning section (6).

The cross-reference before references doesn't provide references to
rdf:List, rdf:nil, rdf:type, and rdf:Property.  It would be helpful to
at
least mention each of these at least briefly in the guide as an
introduction
before readers dive into the reference or semantics documents.

I hope this helps.  You and your team have done a great job.

Lee


 


-----Original Message-----
From: Smith, Michael K [mailto:michael.smith@eds.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 9:48 AM
To: Lacy . Lee; public-webont-comments@w3.org
Subject: RE: Language Guide Comments

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, 13 May 2003 09:53:28 GMT

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