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

Re: Various Overview Doc Comments

From: Deborah McGuinness <dlm@ksl.stanford.edu>
Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2003 17:55:27 -0700
Message-ID: <3F59307F.8010702@ksl.stanford.edu>
To: Jeff Rafter <jeffrafter@defined.net>
Cc: public-webont-comments@w3.org

Thanks for your comments.
There is now an updated editor's draft that incorporates your 
suggestions.   thx.
The editor's draft is in its usual place so the link on the webont page 
will take you to:
http://www.ksl.stanford.edu/people/dlm/webont/OWLOverview.htm to see the 
updated editor's draft.

i answer your question below in context.
Thanks again for your careful reading of the document and the comments,
Deborah

Jeff Rafter wrote:

>Picky stuff... sorry : )
>
>Overview, section 1.3, 1.4 wording, 2.1 versioning, 3.3, 4
>
>1.3 Use of the word "emposed"-- should be "imposed".
>
done

>1.4 "This document first describes the features from OWL Lite, followed by a
>description from the features that are added in OWL DL and OWL Full " -- 
>Alternate usage of prepositions from/in could be clarified: "This document
>first describes the features in OWL Lite, followed by a description of the
>features that are added in OWL DL and OWL Full "-- both "in"s could be
>changed to "from"-- but the should agree.
>
done - used in

>2.1 Versioning section: "inCompatibleWith" should be "incompatibleWith"
>
done

>3.3 InverseFunctionalProperty: "isTheSocialSecurityNumberFor" appears twice,
>the character case in the second instance is wrong
>"isTheSocialSecurityNumberfor"
>
done

>4. hasValue: "theNetherlands" appears twice, the character case in the
>second instance is wrong "TheNetherlands"
>
the second occurrence started a sentence thus one would expect the first 
word in the sentence to be capitalized.  I changed sentence wording so 
as not to have the problem.

>
>4. cardinality: "(while the property hasChild would have be restricted to
>cardinality 0). " "would have be" should be changed.
>
changed to would have to be...

>
>Finally, I have one small question on the "oneOf" description. The
>description states "From this a reasoner can deduce the maximum cardinality
>(7) of any property that has daysOfTheWeek as its allValuesFrom
>restriction."
>
> Can it really? 
>
yes - given an enumerated set with a number of distinct elements in it, 
a reasoner may infer a max cardinality on any property that has that 
enumerated set as a value restriction.  This is not necessarily the most 
specific max cardinality restriction if as in the case you mention 
below, there is a more specific enumerated set (i.e., an enumerated set 
with a  smaller number of distinct elements in it.)

I did not change the text of the document since we do not mention on all 
of the other statements of the form.... "from this a reasoner can 
deduce..."  that of course more specific information will mean that the 
reasoner may be able to deduce more specific information.

>It seems that it can infer this, but not absolutely deduce.
>For example a property like weekendDays in OWL DL may have maxCardinality of
>2, not 7. 7 is the absolute max but additional restrictions would need to be
>considered, right?
>
>Cheers,
>Jeff Rafter
>
>  
>

-- 
 Deborah L. McGuinness 
 Knowledge Systems Laboratory 
 Gates Computer Science Building, 2A Room 241 
 Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-9020 
 email: dlm@ksl.stanford.edu
 URL: http://ksl.stanford.edu/people/dlm 
 (voice) 650 723 9770    (stanford fax) 650 725 5850   (computer fax)  801 705 0941
Received on Friday, 5 September 2003 21:04:50 GMT

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