W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webont-comments@w3.org > January 2004

RE: OWL Web Ontology Language Reference Editorial Comments

From: Smith, Michael K <michael.smith@eds.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 17:02:31 -0600
Message-ID: <2928D6FE55D5584390909578CAC8397D06E00B4A@usplm216.txpln.us.eds.com>
To: "Lacy . Lee" <LLacy@drc.com>, public-webont-comments@w3.org
Thanks for the great and incredibly detailed comments.
Listed below I enumerate how they were handled.  
- Mike
- Table of Contents - "4.3" shows up twice
- Section 1.1., OWL DL bullet, recommend "computable and decidable"
  instead of "computed and decidability"
That is not the structure. It is "computational completeness .. and
decidability ...".  The "computed" is in a parenthetical note.
- Section 1.2, The examples section 2.1 and 2.2 suggest that the
  document is primarily describing the wine ontology, but then in the
  middle of 3.1.1, we start discussing classes that are in the food
  ontology.  The reader should be warned in the last sentence of 1.2
  that examples from the two ontologies are intermixed.
Hmmm.  I think we address this enough in the the sentence
"All of the examples presented in this document are taken from the
ontologies contained in wine.rdf and food.rdf, except those marked
with 'not' in the bottom right corner."
- Section 2.1, paragraph that starts "As an aid", recommend
  changing "ENTITY" to "XML ENTITY".
Entities are not necessarily XML entities.
- Section 2.1, use of xml:base never explained
You are right.  It doesn't get talked about until 2.2.  But I think
I'll leave it.
- Section 3.1.1, paragraph beginning "Another form" says that
  rdf:about="#x" syntax permits the extension of the imported
  definition of x.  However, I would think that if x was imported, we
  would have to provide its full URI since it's part of an attribute
Good catch.  Done.
- Section 3.1.1, paragraph beginning "In the world", recommend
  changing "both" to "each" to avoid confusing reader.
The way I read "both" it implies that the classes are defined in one
other ontology, which is what the example shows.  "Each" would be ok,
and is more general, but doesn't match the case where they are both
defined in food.rdf.
- Section 3.1.3, levels of representation bullet, recommend removing
  "It is well known that"
- Section 3.1.3., paragraph beginning "Note that the same", recommend
  rewording second sentence to: "Each instance of Wine in the example
  ontology could be designated in a differently designed ontology to
  be the class consisting"
Changed to "In an alternate ontology, each instance of <tt>Wine</tt>
in the current ontology could instead designate a class consisting".
- Section 3.1.3, paragraph beginning "In a similar vein", last
  sentence says "as discussed above".  I couldn't find the discussion
Generally, it does seem to be talked about above, without having a
nice discrete place to reference.
- Section 3.1.3, paragraph beginning "Adding that the wine", second to
  last sentence, Wine should either be generic with small W or Courier
  font to identify as the Wine class in the example.
We have stepped out of the onotology to talk about what might be
possible.  So I chose not to reference classes.
- Section 3.2.1, paragraph starting "Notice how", recommend rewording
  last sentence to "while those that contain others (have things
  LocatedIn them) must be regions."
Leaving as is because of possible confusion what is the range vs
- Section 3.2.1, paragraph starting "It is now" states that concept of
  regions and WineGrapes can now be introduced, but never expands with
Deleted region text.
- Section 3.2.2, first paragraph, recommend changing "individuals to
  datatypes" to "individuals to RDF literals and XMLS datatypes"
- Section 3.2.2, first paragraph, "use of simple types" to "use of a subset
of simple types"
Since its expanded on in detail in the next paragraph, I left it as is.
- Section 3.2.2, second paragraph, first sentence, "many" to "most"
- Section 3.2.2, paragraph beginning "Datatype properties",
  "xdt:positiveInteger" should be "&xsd;positiveInteger"
- Section 3.3.2, recommend removing parenthesis from second paragraph.
- Section 3.4.2 (and previously), I'm unclear why the
  nonNegativeInteger datatype is explicitly stated in the cardinality
  properties since their range is already restricted to
I believe this is simply the syntax (bulky as it is), for data values.
- Section 3.4.2, paragraph starting with "Cardinality expressions",
  it's unclear whether "cardinality expressions" is meant to include
  minCardinality and maxCardinality.  
minC and maxc are cardinality expressions, so yes.
- If it is, then cases of min 0,
  max 0, and card 0 should be added to second sentence.  If it's meant
  to only refer to Cardinality itself, the descriptions in second
  sentence are misleading because the only cases are 0 and 1.
The point of the statement "This permits ..." is that those were the
special cases that were felt necessary for Lite.  
- Section 5.1.3, last word, "France" should be in regular font since
  it's not used in the example, but refers to "#FrenchRegion" which
- Section 5.3, first sentence, recommend changing "constructor" to
Hmm.  Changed to "construct" to tie in to Reference.
- Cross Reference appears to be missing AnnotationProperty (discussed in
- Cross Reference appears to be missing OntologyProperty, dataRange,
  x (seeAlso), and x (isDefinedBy) (unless they've been removed and I
  stayed up to date).
Done for OntologyProperty and dataRange.  Did not include a cross
reference to the rdf constructs that are not mentioned in the guide.


- Mike 

Michael K. Smith (+1-512-404-6683) 

-----Original Message-----
From: Lacy . Lee [mailto:LLacy@drc.com] 
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 11:03 AM
To: public-webont-comments@w3.org
Subject: OWL Web Ontology Language Reference Editorial Comments

The OWL Reference document is very solid and helpful.


The only general comment I have is that the reference document occasionally
refers to "triples".  It the document consistently referred to axioms and
statements, many readers would not have to apply RDF knowledge of triples to
understand the content of the document.  There are very few mentions of
"triples" (e.g., 3.1.2, 7.1, 8.3), so I think this would be a minor fix.


I would like to offer a few nit picky comments to support the final editing


Section 3, NOTE beginning "If one provides", typo, change "enumerattion" to


Section 3.2.1, first paragraph, typo, change "than" to "then"


Section 3.2.1, last paragraph, recommend changing "has a librettist" to "has
at least one librettist".  The "a" suggests a cardinality of 1, instead of a
mincardinality of 1.


Section 3.2.2, NOTE beginning "OWL DL", appears to suggest that in OWL Lite
a property restriction could be the subject of an owl:equivalentClass
statement, and I thought it could only be the object.


Section 3.2.3, paragraph beginning "This class axiom", I believe you meant
to say "second example" instead of "first example"


Section 3.2.4, Man example, I believe a "Man" should be "#Man" since it's an
"about" attribute


Section 3.2.4, MusicDrama example, I believe a "MusicDrama" should be
"#MusicDrama" since it's an "about" attribute


Section 4, paragraph beginning "An object property are" should be "An object
property is"


Section 4.1.3, last NOTE, suggests a singular use of rdfs:range, while
multiple statements are allowed, recommend changing wording to
"...descriptions allowed as objects of rdfs:range are class names"


Section 4.3.1, paragraph starting "The following", change "person" to


Section 5.1, paragraph starting "The example", change "with as datatype the"
to "with the"


Section 7.1, Annotation properties aren't very well defined in any of the
OWL documents.


Section 7.1., MusicDrama example, I believe a "MusicDrama" should be
"#MusicDrama" since it's an "about" attribute


Section 7.2, type, change "so may" to "so it may"


Section 7.4.3, seems to be inconsistent with section 6 of the OWL Guide
because the Guide says not to assume backward compatibility and this section
seems to suggest that compatibility can be assumed for 2 versions


Section 7.4.5, it's unclear in the example whether we need to explicitly
state that Car is an OWL class since DeprecatedClass is a subclass of
rdfs:Class and not owl:Class; similarly for the hasDriver property, do we
need to explicitly state as an owl:ObjectProperty since DeprecatedProperty
is a subclass of rdf:Property?


Appendix A, versionItem should link to section 6 of the OWL Guide


Appendix B, recommend providing versionInfo as a typedLiteral using
&xsd#date datatype in Ontology header 


Appendix B, shouldn't we explicitly state that the inverseOf property is


Appendix C, isn't the domain and range of versionInfo owl:Thing?  Nothing is
stated in the table


Appendix D, aren't OntologyProperty, AnnotationProperty, and DataRange new
since DAML+OIL?


I hope these comments/suggestions help!



Received on Sunday, 18 January 2004 18:10:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:09:29 UTC