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

Fwd: WG: Review of Reference Document

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 11:19:31 -0500
Message-Id: <p05200f56ba5f00bf77f2@[]>
To: webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>

From Raphael:

>From: "Raphael Volz" <volz@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de>
>To: "Jim Hendler" <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
>Subject: WG: Review of Reference Document
>Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 14:42:14 -0000
>X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
>Importance: Normal
>X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.8 required=5.0
>	tests=SPAM_PHRASE_00_01
>	version=2.43
>Hi -
>I already sent it to www-webont-wg@w3.org about 3 hours ago.
>But it does not appear in the list of mails...
>Please forward it to the list through your email.

btw, my mistake - Raphael's review is of our reference, not the RDF 
Core one (he will do that one as well)

>Review of Language Reference Document
>o The Abstract does not include any hints about the
>relation of the document wrt. to other documents.
>---> Suggest including link to "Reading Track" and
>positioning of document intention.
>o this is done in detail in introductory remarks, but should
>be briefly mentioned on top of the page to facilitate easy
>o Update Index with SUbsections of section 2
>Introductory Remarks should start with something like that:
>"This document gives a systematic, compact and informal description of all
>the modelling primitives of OWL. We expect this document to serve as a
>reference guide for users of the OWL language.
>The document additionally specifies the normative exchange syntax for OWL.
>defines the collection of RDF triples which constitue the OWL covabulary and
>what the prescribed meaning of
>such triples is. RDF Documents using this vocabulary constitute OWL
>knowledge bases"
>---> Merges Start of sec and end of sec and some statements in the bullet
>- Update bullet 3-4 accordingly to:
>"An abstract syntax serving as a basis for formal specification is specified
>in the OWL Web Ontology Language 1.0 Abstract Syntax and Semantics [OWL
>Abstract Syntax and Semantics].
>It also provides a precise and formal definition of the meaning of the
>language constructs by means of a  Tarski-style Model Theory.
>o Update Bullet 5 to say:
>	- OWL comes in 3 Layers. Lowest Layer OWL Lite is described in "Feature
>	? General question, do we need a feature synopsis for OWL DL, 
>OWL Full ?
>o Remove Presentation Syntax (Bullet 6) unless delivered in time.
>o Requirements Document Reference is missing
>o Test Case Document Reference is missing
>Subsec Different Syntactic Forms
>--> Say that the RDF graph is the normative exchange syntax, independent
>of the particular RDF serialization used in a document.
>--> Personally I find the used wording a little clumpsy
>--> Syntax Note should also be reflected in GUIDE ?
>Subsec Mixing OWL with arbitrary RDF
>o Link to A.Syn.Sem. for formal specification.
>--> Mixing Note should als be reflected in GUIDE ?
>Sec Language Structure
>What does it mean to have more than one header ?
>- Versioning info
>o Remove reference to issue ? Write consequence of resolution into doc
>- Imports
>o Remove reference to issue ? Write consequence into doc.
>o What does
>- Objects and dt values
>--> Be more precise: OWL also allows the use of XML SIMPLE! Datatypes.
>- Class Elements
>--> Explain (0,*) Boolean Exoressions better (mention involved tags)
>--> Mention Tag for enumeration (owl:oneOf)
>- Class Expressions
>--> Refactor last paragraph into new subsection "Predefined Classes"
>- Enumerations
>--> Speak of individual instead of instances.
>--> Subsec on Boolean COmbinations is missing at this point, move later
>occurence up. Mention that intersectionOf is in OWL Lite
>- Property Restriction
>Might want to mention that hasValue is not available in Lite
>- Sec Property Elements
>Talk of individuals instead of instances
>Notice that owl:FunctionalProperty and owl:InverseFunctionalProperty specify
>global cardinality restrictions. That is, no matter what class the property
>is applied to, the cardinality constraints must hold, unlike the various
>cardinality properties used in property restrictions, which are part of a
>class element, and are only enforced on the property when applied to that
>---> raises the question what happens when the constraints do not hold ? Do
>we entail
>equivalence or raise an exception.... unspecified behaviour ?
>- Sec Instances
>o Rename to Individuals
>- Sec Datatypes
>o Make explicit that we are only dealing with XML SIMPLE! Datatypes.
>Put reference to XML Schema doc where those types are enumerated.
>Give example of usage.
>Appendix D:
>o Insert paragraph on datatype treatment
>7 -> rdf:domain, rdf:range instead of owl:domain/range
>Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
>Best regards,
>Raphael Volz
>Institut AIFB, Universität Karlsruhe
>WIM, FZI Karlsruhe

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)
Received on Thursday, 30 January 2003 11:57:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:51 UTC