W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > July 2002

Re: LANG: new version of abstract syntax/translation document

From: <herman.ter.horst@philips.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 18:10:19 +0200
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF98A0ED5A.1C99850D-ONC1256BF7.0058D605@diamond.philips.com>
The main additions to the current version of the document
(version of 6 July), compared to the version that I reviewed earlier, 
are about OWL Lite and the mapping to triple syntax.
Below you find my review comments for the current version.

- Given the discussions, I assume that the title will read 
"Abstract Syntax of the OWL Web Ontology Language", or something 
close to that.

- Section 6 is named "Mapping to the Triple Syntax".  Which triple
syntax?  As there is nothing between RDF and the ontology layer in the
layering envisioned for the Semantic Web, one would expect that
only the namespaces rdf, rdfs and owl are used, as in the
OWL reference description document.
However, instead of the namespace owl, heavy use is made of 
properties and classes from the namespace daml.
A complete description of the mapping from OWL abstract syntax 
to RDF and RDF Schema triples also requires the definition of 
these daml entities, preferably renamed with owl.
At the very least, this document requires a reference to
another document for these daml entities.

- In the table specifying the translation to triples in Section 6, 
the restrictions atleast, atmost, and exactly should be replaced 
by mincardinality etc.

- In Section 5.3.3, in the cardinality production, two lines,
containing the second occurrence of mincardinality and of 
maxcardinality, should be omitted.

- The next to last paragraph before Section 1.1 should be changed,
as RDF triples are now included.

- Unlike the earlier version of the document, the productions 
now contain many semicolons, which I prefer to leave out
again.

- The second to last paragraph before Section 5.1 says that
"each class axiom contains a collection of more-general classes,
a collections of ...restrictions, and a collection of descriptions".
This was true of the version of the document that I first reviewed
but not of the current setup of the OWL class axioms, nor of the 
current OWL Lite class axioms.
I suggest to reconsider the text before Section 5.1 so that it deals
with (current) OWL and OWL Lite, and largely contains information 
common to OWL and OWL Lite.

- Typos: ragnes, vocablary


Herman ter Horst
Received on Monday, 15 July 2002 12:13:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:51 GMT