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

RE: comments on Overview and Guide

From: Smith, Michael K <michael.smith@eds.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:39:57 -0600
Message-ID: <B8E84F4D9F65D411803500508BE3221414AE9255@USPLM207>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, www-webont-wg@w3.org

The latest version of the Guide is available at 


It responds to 

1. Peter's comments (except for 5.1.1 marked # Pending) and 
2. Raphael Volz and Sean Bechhofer's validator check of wine.owl.

I have changed the namespace, versioning and imports for food and wine 
to refer to the current locations of the ontologies 

Detailed response to Peter's comments below.  

I consider this to be ready for last call.  

- Mike

Michael K. Smith, Ph.D., P.E.
EDS - Austin Innovation Centre
98 San Jacinto, #500
Austin, TX  78701

phone: +01-512-404-6683
email: michael.smith@eds.com

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider [pfps@research.bell-labs.com]
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 11:16 AM
To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Subject: comments on Overview and Guide

.... (elided Overview comments)

Comments on ``Web Ontology Language (OWL) Guide Version 1.0'' dated
``W3C Working Draft 9 March 2003''.

general question - Why are Overview Section 1.3 and Guide Section 1.1 so

# I wrote the original 1.1, then it was revised with lots of input from 
# other WG members.  I think the Overview found it useful.

general comment - It is OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax, not OWL Abstract
		Syntax and Semantics.

web vs Web - I think that ``Web'' is supposed to be used instead of
# DONE. I had both.  They should all be 'Web'.

title - I suggest
		The OWL Web Ontology Language Guide

abstract - I suggest
	The OWL Web Ontology Language is intended ....

missing - oneOf on datavalues
# Its there, briefly, in 3.2.2.  Points to Reference.

1 - I suggest no paragraph break before ``To support ...''.
# Left as is

1 - I suggest
	The OWL Web Ontology Language is a language ...

1 - I suggest
	An OWL ontology may include information about classes, properties,
	and their instances.
# definitions => descriptions

1.1 - I suggest
	... while OWL Lite supports ... and provide a quick ...

2 - I suggest
	OWL is ... content.

	OWL collects related information into ontologies.
	An OWL ontology is mostly a collection of information about
	classes, properties, and their instances.  

	As OWL is part of the Semantic Web, and the Semantic Web is
	inherently distributed, OWL must allow for information to be
	gathered from distributed sources.  This is partly done by allowing
	ontologies to be related, including explicitly importing
	information from other ontologies.

	The other way that OWL deals with distributed information is by
	working within an open world framework.  In OWL, information about
	a resource is generally not assumed to be complete.  While a class
	or individual can be introduced in a particular ontology and
	information about the class or individual can be given there,
	information about the class or individual can also be given in
	other places.  New information can only extend
	previously-encountered information, never override it, making OWL a
	monotonic formalism.

	New information can contradict previously-encountered information,
	but even this situation does not result in the
	previously-encoutered information being overriden, instead
	resulting in a formal contradiction.  The possibility of such
	contradictions is something that a designer of an ontology needs to
	take into consideration.  Is is expected that tool support will
	help detect such cases.
# Merged.

2.1 - I suggest
	Before we can use a set of terms in OWL, ....
# Left as is

2.1 - I suggest
	OWL depends on constructs defined by RDF, RDFS, and XML Schema
	datatypes. ...

2.2 - I suggest
	The owl:Ontology element ...

2.2 - I think that it is ``xml:base''.
# Already done

2.2 - I suggest
	... mechanisms.  Namespace declarations provide .... indicate the
	intention to include ...
# Left pretty much as is.

2.3 - It is ``rdf:about''.
# DONE.  

2.3 - I suggest
	Properties that are used as general annotations ...

2.3 - I suggest removing the paragraph on </owl:Ontology> this closing tag
	is given above.
# Deleted first use.

2.3 - I suggest
	is ultimately closed by
	which closes the namespace declaration shown above.
# Closes the rdf:RDF element.  Seems implicit.

3 - It is generally not a good idea to start a section with a subsection
    heading.  I suggest starting this section as

	3. Basic Ontology Information

	Much of the information in an OWL ontology concerns classes,
	instances of classes, and relationships between these instances.
	Some notions of ontology only permits the first two kinds of
	information allowed in an OWL ontology, but OWL also allows
	information to be specified about particular individuals.

# I agree with the general suggestion.  Suggested paragraph seems
# Made changes.
3.1.1 - I suggest
	3.1.1 Simple Named Classes
	owl:Class, rdfs:subClassOf
# Left owl identifiers in heading unprefixed.  I have tried both ways
# and this just seems more readable as a heading.

3.1.1 - I suggest
	... In particular, we will have more to say about Winery later.

	The syntax rdf:ID="Region" is used to introduce a name.  This is

3.1.1 - I suggest
	It is possible to refer to 
# Left as is.

3.1.1 - I suggest
	... using its full URI, here ...

3.1.1 - I suggest
	The simplest taxonomic constructor for classes is rdfs:subClassOf.
	This relationship relates a more-specific class to a more-general
	class.  If X is a subclass of Y, then every instance of X is also
	an instance of Y.  The rdfs:subClassOf relationship is transitive.

3.1.1 - I suggest
	Information about a class usually also includes restrictions on
	instances of the class.  So far we have ...
# Left as is.

3.1.2 - I suggest
	3.1.2 Individuals

3.1.2 - I suggest
	Note that the following is identical to the introduction above.	
# definition => example

3.1.2 - I suggest no paragraph break before ``Second, ...'.

3.1.2 - I suggest
	In order to have available a few more classes for the examples in
	the next section, we introduce ...
# Partially 

3.1.2 - I think that ``underly'' should be ``underlie''.
# DONE.  

3.2 - I suggest

	3.2 Simple Properties

	This world of classes and individuals ....

	3.2.1 Defining Properties
	owl:ObjectProperty, owl:DatatypeProperty, rdfs:subPropertyOf,
	rdfs:domain, rdfs:range
# See above re headers.

3.2.1 - I suggest removing the sentence before ``The property
# I put that in explicitly because it is not stated elsewhere (I think).

3.2.1 - I suggest removing the sentence after ``... made from at least one
# Ditto

3.2.1 - Highlighting may not show up on all renderings of the document.  I
      suggest using instead
	The restriction 
 		... (include the restriction explicitly)
	defines ...
# DONE (left in highlighting, but pulled out restriction as you suggest.)

3.2.1 - Restrictions are allowed in OWL Lite, and thus should not be tagged
	as OWL DL.

3.2.1 - I suggest
	Including this restriction 

3.2.1 - I suggest avoiding the word ``cliche'' to describe simple
      restrictions.  I view it as much better to reserve ``cliche'' for
      larger constructs that could be written in several ways.

3.2.1 - I suggest
	We can now describe the class of Vintages, ...

3.2.2 - I suggest
	make use of many of the built-in XML Schema datatypes. References
	to these datatypes ... suitable ....
# Partially

3.2.2 - I suggest
	... caveats described in OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax.

3.2.2 - I suggest moving the tennisGameScore example to the end of 3.2.2.

3.2.2 - I suggest
	... We introduce the hasVintageYear ...

3.2.3 - I suggest
	First we describe Region and Winery individuals, and then we
	introduce our first wine, .... 
3.2.3 - I suggest
	Below we describe an instance of VintageYear ...

3.3 - I suggest
	to further specify properties and how they can be used.

3.3 - I suggest not using ``tagged''.  A much better phrase would be
      ``specified as''.

3.4 - I suggest having only one paragraph here.

3.4.1 - I suggest
	... restriction requires that ...

3.4.2 - I suggest
	... we specify Vintage ...

3.4.2 - I suggest
	We specified hasVintageYear as a functional property.

3.4.2 - I suggest removing the last sentence, as it can be confused with
	ranges like integers between 1800 and 1900.
# ???

3.4.3 - I suggest
	hasValue allows us to specify ... 

4.1 - I suggest
	4.1 Equivalence between Classes and Properties
	owl:equivalentClass, owl:equivalentProperty

	To tie together a set of ontologies it is frequently ...

4.1 - I suggest
	... owl:equivalentClass ..
# Changed

4.1 - I suggest
	The property owl:equivalentClass ... have precisely the same
	instances.  Note that in OWL DL, .... ... we can use
	owl:sameIndividualAs ...

4.1 - I suggest
	... two independently developed ontologies, ...
	owl:equivalentClass ...

4.1 - I suggest
	... rdfs:subClassOf ... owl:equivalentClass ...

	... owl:equivalentClass ... 

	(etc, in this section and later in the document) 
# DONE mostly

4.2 - I suggest
	4.2. Identity between Individuals
	owl:sameIndividualAs, owl:sameAs

4.3 - I suggest
	4.3. Different Individuals
	owl:differentFrom, owl:AllDifferent

5 - I suggest
	These are called owl:....
# DONE , with denoted => named.

5.1 - I suggest regularizing the subsection headings like
	5.1.1 Intersection [some uses OWL DL]

	5.1.2 Union [OWL DL]
	5.1.3 Complement [OWL DL]

5.1.1 - All the examples are in OWL Lite.  I suggest adding wording that
	talks about the difference, essentially saying that some uses of
	intersection are in OWL Lite.  This will also affect the wording in
	5.1.2 and the tagging of Section 5.
# Pending

5.2 - I suggest
	OWL provides the means to specify a class via

5.2 - I find the last example confusing.  I think that a complete oneOf
	  should be used.
# Which example.  If you find it confusing, I need to change it.

6 - I suggest
	... The owl:priorVersion property ... 

6 - I suggest
	... likely not be allowed in a forthcoming release:
# Left

6 - Deprecation is part of OWL Lite and is not part of versioning, so I
    suggest ending the section 
	It is important to note that owl:... and owl:... have no
	additional semantics and it is up to tool ... intended.

C - I suggest
	Appendix C: An Alternative Region Ontology
    so that you don't have the connotation, for example, that one is used
    on weekdays and the other on weekends.
Received on Sunday, 23 March 2003 16:40:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:58 GMT