Re: Revised wording for Choose the right formalization level

Thanks Joao Paulo, pls see inline below.

On 28/04/2016 13:27, Joao Paulo Almeida wrote:
> Hi Phil and All,
>
> Maybe I am too late to raise issues concerning this BP (BP16 - Choose the
> right formalization level)... But there could be quick fixes, so, there we
> go:

Not too late but we are the stage where comments are a lot more welcome 
when they come with ready to copy and paste text :-)

>
> The following paragraph is not about the right level of formalization, but
> about the scope of the vocabulary:
>
> "Keeping things very simple is always attractive but there is a danger: the
> drive for simplicity might lose some data that provides important
> information, such as the geographical location of the bus stops that would
> prevent showing them on a map."

I have amended this sentence to read:

"Choosing a very simple vocabulary is always attractive but there is a 
danger: the drive for simplicity might lead the publisher to omit some 
data that provides important information, such as the geographical 
location of the bus stops that would prevent showing them on a map."


>
> The examples with SKOS is much better than this one with respect to the
> kinds of formal constraints one may include or exclude from a vocabulary,
> so perhaps the example about the geographical location of bus stops could
> be suppressed altogether.

I think the bus stop example is worth keeping as a) it is a nice simple 
example, b) we're using the bus stop data as a running example 
throughout the document.

>
> There is a statement which is technically incorrect in my view:
> " using a complex vocabulary (ontology) will facilitate complex tasks such
> as reasoning"
>
> Actually, the relation between the "complexity" of the vocabulary and
> reasoning is quite intricate. A more expressive formal theory may hamper
> automated reasoning, e.g., by making it computationally untractable. A
> quick fix could be:
>
> " using a complex vocabulary (ontology) may serve as a basis for tasks such
> as automated reasoning."

Thank you. Copy and paste suggestions are good (I copied and pasted it).


>
> Finally, there is some text in this fragment which is quite hard to
> understand. I don't think the line of reasoning is clear to the reader:
>
> "If the nature of the data is such that the likely use is in a research
> context where the fact that A, B and C are true, and that D is not true,
> leads to the conclusion E, then something like an OWL Profile would clearly
> be appropriate [OWL2-PROFILES].
>
> But a list of bus stops is a list of bus stops."

I tried to make it simpler:

"If the data is sufficiently rich to support detailed research questions 
(the fact that A, B and C are true, and that D is not true, leads to the 
conclusion E) then something like an OWL Profile would clearly be 
appropriate [OWL2-PROFILES].

But there is nothing complicated about a list of bus stops."


See the full thing at
http://philarcher1.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#ChooseRightFormalizationLevel

Diff at
http://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=http%3A%2F%2Fw3c.github.io%2Fdwbp%2Fbp.html&doc2=http%3A%2F%2Fphilarcher1.github.io%2Fdwbp%2Fbp.html#ChooseRightFormalizationLevel

@Newton - pull request issued.

Cheers

Phil.

>
> regards,
> João Paulo
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 8:53 AM, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote:
>
>> Perfect!
>> Thanks a lot, Phil.
>>
>> Antoine
>>
>>
>> On 28/04/16 11:21, Phil Archer wrote:
>>
>>> Done. As in, I removed that line and re-inserted the schema.org example.
>>> although I moved it to the implementation section, right after the bit
>>> about SKOS.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 27/04/2016 21:42, Antoine Isaac wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Phil,
>>>>
>>>> This is a good re-write! I'd support it except for two minor comments:
>>>>
>>>> - I'd remove "It is always simpler to create your own vocabulary than to
>>>> reuse someone else's, but in doing so, you isolate your data from the
>>>> rest of the Web and make it harder for others to use." this may be too
>>>> close to the previous BP, and I feel that without it the text read also
>>>> well.
>>>>
>>>> - I'm quite keen on having the schema.org example as it shows how
>>>> ontological commitment has been systematically minimized for the benefit
>>>> of a community. And to me it reads a bit more concrete than the bus stop
>>>> (or maybe it's just the rendering of it in this new BP)
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> Antoine
>>>>
>>>> On 27/04/16 19:12, Phil Archer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> During a call with Annette, Antoine and the BP editors yesterday I
>>>>> took an action to rewrite the Choose the right formalization level BP
>>>>> taking into account various comments. I have done this as can be seen at
>>>>> http://philarcher1.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#ChooseRightFormalizationLevel
>>>>>
>>>>> I've added it to my pull request should others think it's an
>>>>> improvement. It's a hard one to write since it is all about judgement
>>>>> rather than anything concrete.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

-- 


Phil Archer
W3C Data Activity Lead
http://www.w3.org/2013/data/

http://philarcher.org
+44 (0)7887 767755
@philarcher1

Received on Thursday, 28 April 2016 16:26:41 UTC