W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > January 2003

Re: Comments on Feature Synopsis

From: Deborah McGuinness <dlm@ksl.stanford.edu>
Date: Wed, 01 Jan 2003 19:54:09 -0800
Message-ID: <3E13B7E0.26FABD17@ksl.stanford.edu>
To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
CC: webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>, Frank van Harmelen <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>

thx for the comments.
a few comments sprinkled where appropriate below.

Jim Hendler wrote:

> These coments are based on the December 31, 2002 draft at
> http://www.ksl.stanford.edu/people/dlm/webont/OWLFeatureSynopsis.htm
> Summary: This document is in very good shape technically, but can be
> improved to better explain the three sublangauges (with very little
> new writing).
> Big changes:
> Basically, this document has one real problem.  It states "Since OWL
> DL and OWL Full have include (sic) the same vocabulary, they are
> handled together in this document."

other than the grammatical problem which is gone now,
that was the plan we had on the telecon where the update was mentioned.
i do not oppose the new plan though.

> Other than the grammatical
> error, I think it is a mistake to handle it this way, especially as
> we could make this document even more valuable by having it explain
> the distinction between DL and Full, as I will document below.
> Here's how I propose we fix this:
> 0 - we rename the document to "Web Ontology Language (OWL) Feature
> Synopsis Version 1.0" (deleting the sublanguage names)
> 1 - abstract will need to delete the last line since it will now cover Full.
> 2- last paragraph of intro will need rewriting
> 3 - Section 2.2 is renamed OWL DL Synopsis and the first line is
> changed to read.  The list of OWL DL constructs that are in addition
> to those of OWL Lite are given below.
> 4 - A section 2.3 is Added which reads as follows:
>    2.3 OWL Full Synopsis
>    OWL Full uses the same vocabulary as OWL DL, but relaxes some restrictions on
>    the use of some features.  These are described in Section 5.0 below.
> 5 - Section Four is renamed to "Incremental Language Description of OWL DL"
> and the first line changes to read "The OWL DL vocabulary..."
> 6 - A new top level section, to become section 5.0 is added.  In this
> section we say that OWL Full uses the same vocabulary as OWL DL, but
> relaxes two features of OWL DL.  It then lists the following two
> things<ul>:
> <li><b><i>InverseFunctionalProperty (datatypes):</i></b> OWL Full
> allows inverseFunctional Property to be applied to datatype
> properties.  (and a short description that this is desirable for
> allowing database-key like functionality ) >/li>
> <li><b>Classes as Instances:</b></i> A short description of what this
> is and when it could be desirable.  The words on this in the
> requirements document (this was a requirement) coupled with a simple
> example (either from wine or the one on airplane flights we heard at
> first f2f)
> </ul>

ok - do pat and peter and ian think that captures all the differences?

> 7 - Summary becomes section 6, first line is changed to read "... a
> synopsis of OWL Lite, OWL DL and OWL Full."
> I believe the entire change above only requires two new paragraphs to
> be written, and would greatly stengthen the language.  (I will
> volunteer to take a stab at the inverseFunctionalProperty, and
> suspect Guus might be willing to do class as instances)

sounds fine.

> -----
> other comments
> The intro should be reworded a bit - in addition to fixing the last
> paragraph as above, a little more care needs to be taken w/respect to
> describing our relation with RDF Schema and citing appropriately.

is this done better anywhere else?  i would be happy to steal/reuse/point

> section 3.6 OWL Lite Header Information is out of date.  My
> suggestion is we either drop the details from that section (simply
> say there exists various kinds of header information, summarize and
> point at Ref) or else extend it to include backwardCompatible and the
> like.
> The extralogical features for deprecation are not mention in this
> document - again, either mention and point to Ref, or have a real
> description (these could be folded into the above)

i had pointed out in my message to jeremy what needs a decision.
i favor abstraction and pointing to ref but we do need to decide if all of the
header info is in owl lite.  my default is yes.

> --
> Professor James Hendler                           hendler@cs.umd.edu
> Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies     301-405-2696
> Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab.    301-405-6707 (Fax)
> Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742          240-731-3822 (Cell)
> http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler

 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 Wednesday, 1 January 2003 22:49:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:56 GMT