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

[Fwd: Review of Reference Document]

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 16:14:41 -0600
To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-id: <1043964881.32645.282.camel@dirk.dm93.org>
this seems to have been spam-fitered...

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/



attached mail follows:




Hi -

just in time ;-)

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
reading,

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.
This
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
enumeration...


- 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
Synopsis"
	? 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
class.
"
---> 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
http://www.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/WBS/rvo
volz@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de

WIM, FZI Karlsruhe
http://wim.fzi.de/
volz@fzi.de
Received on Thursday, 30 January 2003 17:15:18 GMT

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