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

an update to Overview/Feature Synopsis

From: Deborah McGuinness <dlm@ksl.stanford.edu>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 23:52:46 -0800
Message-ID: <3E2CFC4D.726C889A@ksl.stanford.edu>
To: webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
the previous editors draft for the Feature Synopsis document
(http://www.ksl.stanford.edu/people/dlm/webont/OWLFeatureSynopsis.htm )

now points to the updated draft Overview document which is up at:
http://www.ksl.stanford.edu/people/dlm/webont/OWLOverview.htm

I also attach the overview file here for compliance with w3c posting
requirements.

I am including notes on what was done and remains.
I will do a hyperlinking pass over it but given short time frames I
figured it was best to post it now and meet the request for posting
today so that assigned reviewers could do a pass for content immediately
if desired.

comments (updated from frank's notes from the manchester face to face).

Thanks to Frank for this update.
Comments welcome.

Deborah for Frank and Deborah

=========comments =========
Report of breakout session on Feature Synopsis Documemt


Overall
conclusion:
- make it more introductory,
- less technical,
- stronger on
motivation/purpose
- rename it "overview",

Main chunks of work:
- CHUNK
"GUIDE/ROADMAP":
- CHUNK "MOTIVATION FOR THE LANGUAGE"
- CHUNK SUBLANGUAGES:
-
CHUNK FEATURE LIST:
- CHUNK EDITORIAL
- Some suggestions for Guide
document

CHUNK "GUIDE/ROADMAP":
- needs a reading guide/roadmap between the
documents
  - make Synopsis non-normative (ie informative)
    FvH: DONE in
"status of this document"
  - explicit statement of purpose, intended
audience, follow-up reading
    FvH: DONE in abstract [*1]
  - remove ref. to
WG expect in header
    FvH: DONE
  - title: "Web Ontology Language (OWL):
Overview"
    FvH: DONE
  - Intended readership:
    - anyone who wants to
decide if they want to use OWL
      FvH: NOT DONE, implicit in [*1]
    -
easy first entry report
      FvH:  NOT DONE, implicit in [*1]
    - knowledge
of RDF(S) is useful but not essential
      FvH: DONE in abstract
  - mention
UML as a metaphor
    FvH: NOT DONE: I judged this would distract too much,

           it seems more appropriate for the Guide if anywhere.

CHUNK
"MOTIVATION FOR THE LANGUAGE"
FvH: ALL THIS DONE IN NEW SECTION 1.1: "Why
OWL"?
- need motivation for the language: lift par. from Requirements Doc
  +
pointer to ReqDoc for further reading.
  DONE in new section 1.1
- Relation
with RDF(S) and XML
    (both in terms of motivation and what's possible)

Shortest statement = expressive language for defining shared
  vocabulary,
with formal semantics that makes it suitable for machine
  usage.
  [see list
of Dan]
  XML: surface syntax, no/unconstrained semantics
  XML Schema:
restricting form of XML documents
  RDF: datamodel for things + relations
between them,
       some simple semantics
  RDF Schema: vocabulary for
documenting properties and classes,
              with semantics for
generalisation-hierarchies of
              properties and classes
  OWL : more
vocabulary for modelling concepts such as cardinality
        ("exactly one"),
equality, richer typing of properties
        ("all carnivores eat meat")
  - what
does upgrading from RDF involve
  FvH: DONE by pointing to relevant document
when it appears

CHUNK SUBLANGUAGES:
- Needs better stuff on sublanguages and
semantics-layering:
  - motivation "why each sublanguage",
  - explanation
"what it is"
  - guide on "when to use what"
  - consequences of this to
choice
  FvH: All this done by lifting excellent text from the Guide
      (I
wrote parts of it myself:-)
  FvH: also reworded intro-texts of section 3 and
4
  FvH: also moved the text on relationship with RDF from section 3
     to
section 1.2
- point to conformance issues
  FvH: not done because no such text
available yet (in Test?)
- strategy for feature-list should be additive
  FvH:
it is alraedy, so not action required
- remove the traces of "arguing for the
need for OWL Lite"
  FvH: DONE by removing text from (now) 1.3

CHUNK FEATURE
LIST:
- make feature list more introductory & shorter,
  FvH: significantly
shortened many of the descriptions
       (as per request of the F2F, in order
to avoid overlap with
       Guide and Reference).
    interlinked
  FvH:
added placeholders for links
    for each feature: "this language element
allows you to..."
    (only scrap feature list alltogether if this doesn't
work)
  - incorrectness on sameClassAs/sameIndividualAsa
    SameAs = synonym
for SameIndividualAs
    sameClassAs has separate semantics
  - check
correctness of Imports
- max length 10 pages
  if nec. economise on details
and not on motivation etc.
- PostPone until issue is clearer:
  - importing
documents vs language levels
- we deliberately stay don't list RDF
syntax

CHUNK EDITORIAL
interdocument consistency of terminology,

(dialect/language/vocabulary, instance/individual/member)
FvH: TODO
FvH: Have
included link to Guide-glossary in Introduction
interlinking etc
FvH: many
more explicit refs to Guide and Reference (and a few to AS&S)
- link from text
to places in Guide
FvH: TODO
- link from initial table/list to own text
FvH:
TODO links and anchors still to be provided
- consider an appendix with
comprehensive references to all doc's
  (a la current Guide)
FvH: copyright
statement updated with new W3C-prescribed version
     DONE
FvH: shorten
language synopsis format
     DONE

- check against
http://www.w3.org/Guide/pubrules#head
- Brian McBride and/or Dave Becket
comments
- replace "RDF namespace" by "features already present in RDF(S)",

replace "OWL namespace" by "features introduced by this language"
  FvH:
Done


----------------------------------------------------------------------


- SUGGESTION FOR GUIDE: Description of the language levels in Guide
  document
is misleading/backwards (not consistently addititive or
  diminuitive)

-
SUGGESTION FOR GUIDE:
  needs list of interdefinability between language items


- SUGGESTION FOR GUIDE:
  needs difference-list with DAML+OIL
  [later:
oops, already in reference]

- SUGGESTION FOR GUIDE: explain what it takes to
turn an RDF Schema
  document into an OWL Lite document

- SUGGESTION FOR
GUIDE: explain how to say that two classes are
  different



----------------------------------------------------------------------
readi
ng order in terms of knowledge-requirements:
- Feature synopsis (to become:
Overview)
- Guide
- Reference?
- ASS

--
 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 Tuesday, 21 January 2003 02:47:48 GMT

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