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

Re: Feature Synopsis Review

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 23:24:44 +0100
To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <200301022324.44385.jjc@hpl.hp.com>

> 
> Thanks for the comments.
> The response to these comments also addresses the action item I had to further
> incorporate the 3 levels of owl into the feature synopsis document.
> This used (and continues to use) the guide document from which to either draw
> text or to point to when summarizing for the species of owl.
> 
> specific comments below:
> 
> Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> > In particular the last paragraph of section one incorrectly suggests that OWL
> > DL and OWL Full differ semantically rather than syntactically.
> 
> are you making a proposal that both the guide and the feature synopsis
> incorporate new proposed text?
> if so, could you suggest it?

See Peter's recent suggestions, with my prefered rewordings in my last message.


> 
> > No awareness of the syntactic restrictions on OWL Lite or OWL DL other than
> > the vocabulary is indicated.
> 
> there previously was an introduction in 3 - language description of owl lite that
> mentioned owl lite has a subset of the full owl langague constructors and has a
> few limitations.
> were you proposing adding more text here?

I think some indication of the extent of the limitations is important.
From the point of view of someone writing OWL Lite or OWL DL by hand the 
requirement to explicit type individuals and classes is certainly different from 
not having that requirement in OWL Full.

> 
> >
> > The summary suggests that OWL has two levels OWL Lite and OWL Full, rather
> > than three levels ...
> 
> did you mean the abstract?

(No I was looking at the last section of the document entitled Summary).


> > The document needs another section to indicate the relationship between RDF
> > instance data and OWL Lite instance data. Specifically RDF instance data is
> > only OWL Lite instance data if the following conditions are met:
> >
> > - any class used is explicitly declared as of type owl:Class.
> > - no bnode is the object of two or more triples.
> > - any datatypes used are explicitly declared as of type rdfs:Datatype
> >
> > (such class and datatype declarations must be explicitly in the file; an
> > imports is insufficient). Given that syntax is explicitly excluded from the
> > scope of this document, it may suffice simply to say that there are
> > restrictions.
> 
> Is this discussion in the guide or the reference document?  the feature synopsis
> should just summarize this and point to it.
> I looked but did not find it.  (i did some searches for bnode, instance data,
> etc.)
> can someone provide a section to point to?

I hope the discussion on the reference document today (that I dropped out of) 
will give you such a section.


> > A further problem is the discussion of intersectionOf.
> > The mapping rules from the OWL Lite abstact syntax use intersectionOf and so
> > it is incorrect to assign it only to OWL DL/OWL Full. However, the use in OWL
> > Lite is highly restricted.
> 
> this is worth a short conversation.  while i wanted intersection in owl lite, in
> an effort to add only a small number of non-controversial constructors, it was
> left out.
> possibly the best solution is to include a pointer to the semantics document to
> see the restricted use of intersection in owl lite.
> 

See next message.


> >
> > The reference to the mailing list at the end of section 3.4 is inappropriate
> > in a recommendation in my view.
> 
> this was required at the last face to face meeting since we explicitly rejected
> the user proposal to change the names.  The group decision was to point to the
> message that chris sent to the mailing list.

So be it.


Jeremy
Received on Thursday, 2 January 2003 17:27:06 GMT

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