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

Re: AS & S review: Abstract, Introduction, Abstract Syntax

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 11:15:51 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20030117.111551.55481547.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: herman.ter.horst@philips.com
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org

From: herman.ter.horst@philips.com
Subject: AS & S review: Abstract, Introduction, Abstract Syntax
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 17:33:59 +0100

> Abstract:
> As was also mentioned by Guus, OWL Full should be mentioned.
> --
> Introduction (and table of contents):
> It should also be mentioned in the introduction what Appendix 
> A.2 does, or, better, in the current state, intends to do.

<a href="proofs.html">Appendix A</a>
also contains the sketch of a proof that the entailments in the
RDFS-compatible semantics for OWL Full include all the entailments in
the RDFS-compatible semantics for OWL DL.

> We discussed already earlier that the entire semantics document 
> does not contain the word normative. 
> What comes most close is still the following part of the 
> introduction:
> "Appendix A contains a proof that the direct and RDFS-compatible 
> semantics have the same consequences on OWL ontologies that 
> correspond to abstract OWL ontologies that separate OWL 
> individuals, OWL classes, OWL properties, and the RDF, RDFS, 
> and OWL structural vocabulary. For such OWL ontologies the 
> direct model theory is authoritative and the RDFS-compatible 
> model theory is secondary."
> The appendices contain the word "informative" in their title.
> Since not all of Sections 2 to 5 is normative, I believe that
> it is a good idea to add to the (sub)section names the words
> normative and informative where appropriate.

I am not aware that this is needed.

> --
> Abstract Syntax:
> When you read the later sections on direct semantics and
> mapping to RDF graphs, you often need to refer back to the
> abstract syntax, especially the OWL DL syntax (never the Lite
> syntax).
> It is then inconvenient that the OWL DL syntax is described
> by modification of OWL Lite syntax.
> I noted that in fact, Section 2.3.2 on OWL DL axioms gives
> the OWL DL axioms almost completely: only the last part
> of the property axioms is missing.
> I suggest to add therefore 1) the following sentence to Section
>   As in OWL Lite, the following axioms make several properties
>   be equivalent, or make one property be a sub-property of
>   another: ... .
> and 2) to add to the first paragraph of Section 2.3 that
>   However, Section 2.3.2 lists the OWL DL axioms completely.
> This simple change would greatly facilitate reading the later 
> parts of the document (compare also my remarks about the section 
> on mapping to RDF graphs).

Good idea.   I've slightly changed the proposed wording for 2).
Received on Friday, 17 January 2003 11:16:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:50 UTC