Re: OWL Primer

Dear Luigi,

Thank you for your comment
      <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/ 
2009Sep/0031.html>
on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts.

Regarding reflexivity of the subclass relationship, whether or not  
the phrase in question is illustrative or confusing seems to be a  
matter of editorial judgement. We believe that it does more good than  
harm and so propose to keep it.

Regarding the use of verb forms to indicate the directionality of a  
relationship, we agree that it is not fool proof, but it is often  
useful and is very common practice amongst experienced modellers. In  
fact most modelling tools and "human readable" syntaxes use frame- 
like or infix notation, which works well with the suggested verb forms.

Thank you for the suggestion regarding regarding natural language  
indicators for existential quantification -- we have made the  
relevant addition (see [1]).

Finally, regarding inverse functional properties, it is not the case  
that only a functional property can be inverse functional. Consider,  
for example, "isMotherOf" -- this property clearly isn't functional  
(a mother may have many children), but it is inverse functional (a  
child has only one mother).

[1] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php? 
title=Primer&diff=25887&oldid=25821

Please acknowledge receipt of this email to <mailto:public-owl- 
comments@w3.org> (replying to this email should suffice). In your  
acknowledgment please let us know whether or not you are satisfied  
with the working group's response to your comment.

Regards,
Ian Horrocks
on behalf of the W3C OWL Working Group

On 23 Sep 2009, at 09:53, Luigi Selmi wrote:

> Hi All,
> as a reader of the primer and not as a master of OWL I woul suggest  
> some minor changes in order to make the document more understandable:
>
> 1) paragraph 4.2
> where is written :<Besides this, it is also reflexive, meaning that  
> every class is its own subclass – this is intuitive as well since  
> clearly, every person is a person etc.. >
> i would eliminate "this is intuitive as well since clearly, every  
> person is a person etc" since it could be confusing rather than  
> illustrative
>
> 2) paragraph 4.4
> where is written: <names might be constructions with “of” or with  
> “has” (wifeOf or hasWife). For verbs (like “to love”) an inflected  
> form (loves) or a passive version with “by” (lovedBy) would prevent  
> unintended readings. >
> property label constructed appending prepositions like in wifeOf or  
> lovedBy is questionable. It doesn't avoid the possibility of a  
> mistake. See for example the OWL/XML Syntax of the wife  
> relationship between Bill and Mary. What about using Andrea instead  
> of Bill. Who is the wife ?. A modeler that needs to state that two  
> persons are in
> a "wife" relationship probably creates two disjoint classes, Man  
> and Woman with the first class as the domain and the second its  
> range so avoiding all possible confusion.
> See for example what TBL write about this issue here
>
> 3) paragraph 5.2
> Maybe can be added the line <Natural language indicators for the  
> usage of existential quantification are words like "one" or “some” >
>
> 6) paragrafo 6.1
> where is written: <it is also possible to indicate that the inverse  
> of a given property is functional >
> maybe it means "it is also possible to indicate that the inverse of  
> a given functional property is functional too"
>
> Regards
>
> Luigi Selmi
>
>
>
> "It is easy to be certain. One only has to be sufficiently vague" -  
> C.S. Peirce
> _______________________________
> Luigi Selmi, MSc
> addr.: 12 P.zza Roselle 00179 Rome, Italy
> skype: luigiselmi
> ShareSemantics
>
>
>
> Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync. Check it out!