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

Guide: Proposed response to comments.

From: Smith, Michael K <michael.smith@eds.com>
Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 14:31:43 -0500
Message-ID: <B8E84F4D9F65D411803500508BE3221415C1AA98@USPLM207>
To: webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>


Proposed response to Lee Lacey's latest response.

- Mike


Thanks for your further comments. I appreciate the careful scrutiny.
As before, I have tried to either answer your questions or propose 
an editorial change that I think addresses them.

# Thanks for taking the time to consider my comments/suggestions.  I
# concur with all of your responses.

# Here are a few additional "nitpicky" comments/suggestions:

# Section 3.1.1 para. 1 introduces "owl:Nothing" but doesn't caveat that
# it is OWL DL and OWL Full only.

Recently, the WG decided to add owl:Nothing to OWL Lite.
You will see that reflected in revised versions of the other documents.

# Section 3.4 introduces the concept of property restrictions, but
# doesn't explicitly mention the "restriction class" - owl:Restriction.


 "We do this with property restrictions.  The various 
  forms can only be used within a property restriction. "
 "We do this with <i>property restrictions</i>.  The various 
  forms described below can only be used within the context of an 

# The second sentence of 3.4.1 uses the word instance/instances 3 times,
# and I'm confused about the third use (values of the property) because
# the term "restriction class" is overloaded.  I don't think you're
# referring to the built-in owl:Restriction class, I think you're
# referring to an anonymous class things that have a property "hasMaker"
# whose values belong to the "Winery" class (things made by wineries).

You are right.  To many instances.  Changed

 "The owl:allValuesFrom restriction requires that for every instance of
  the class that has instances of the specified property, the 
  values of the property are all instances of the specified restriction
 "The owl:allValuesFrom restriction requires that for every instance of
  the class that has instances of the specified property, the 
  values of the property are all members of the class indicated by the
  owl:allValuesFrom clause."

# I like the inclusion of the element names under the section headings
# (e.g., "sameIndividualAs" under the 4.2 section heading.  However, the
# fonts should be consistent on these (see also 4.3).


# In section 3.2.1, the two types of properties are distinguished, but
# they are never tied to the owl syntax explicitly.

In 3.2.1 we detail the syntax of owl:ObjectProperty, and then in
3.2.2 we describe owl:DatatypeProperty.  

# The cross-reference before references identifies owl:versionInfo as
# being discussed in section 5.1.2, which is the Union section.  I
# couldn't find any mention of versionInfo, which I expected in the
# Versioning section (6).

Fixed.  The text should have said "6.", not "5.1.2".  
The link does take you to the right place in 6.  

# The cross-reference before references doesn't provide references to
# rdf:List, rdf:nil, rdf:type, and rdf:Property.  It would be helpful to
# at least mention each of these at least briefly in the guide as an
# introduction before readers dive into the reference or semantics
# documents.

There is a link for rdf:type.  The Guide sticks pretty much to the DL
syntax, which does not require the list constructs and rdf:Property.

# I hope this helps.  You and your team have done a great job.
# Lee

Please reply to the mailing list as to whether the above changes 
adequately address your comments.

- 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
Received on Monday, 5 May 2003 15:31:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:53 UTC