- From: Luigi Selmi <selmi_luigi@hotmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 09:31:33 +0200
- To: <public-owl-comments@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <COL123-W436A700AED53C5134071C290D60@phx.gbl>
Hi Ian,
thank you very much for your response to the comments I have
sent out of time and for the correction about inverse functional
properties. Sure, I am fully satisfied with the response. The OWL 2
primer is a very good introduction to the subject. Thanks to all the
OWL wg for the great job.
Regards
Luigi Selmi
CC: public-owl-comments@w3.org
From: ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk
Subject: Re: OWL Primer
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 17:16:32 +0100
To: selmi_luigi@hotmail.com
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 Horrockson 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!
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync. Check it out!
http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_allup_explore_012009
--_ef01cfee-5ca1-45db-8caf-4b8ef7c00e33_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Verdana
}
--></style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
Hi Ian,<br>thank you very much for your response to the comments I have
sent out of time and for the correction about inverse functional
properties. Sure, I am fully satisfied with the response. The OWL 2
primer is a very good introduction to the subject. Thanks to all the
OWL wg for the great job.<br><br>Regards<br><br>Luigi Selmi<br><br><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 255);">
<div class="EC_EC_EC_EC_EC_EC_EC_EC_EC_EC_EC_EC_EC_EC_EC_EC_EC_quotation-text"><span class="EC_EC_EC_EC_EC_EC_EC_EC_EC_EC_EC_EC_EC_EC_EC_EC_EC_exhibit-value"></span></div></div><br><br><br><br><hr id="stopSpelling">CC: public-owl-comments@w3.org<br>From: ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk<br>Subject: Re: OWL Primer<br>Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 17:16:32 +0100<br>To: selmi_luigi@hotmail.com<br><br>
<div>Dear Luigi,</div><div><br></div><div>Thank you for your comment </div><div> <<a href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Sep/0031.html">http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Sep/0031.html</a>></div><div>on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts. </div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>Thank you for the suggestion regarding regarding natural language indicators for existential quantification -- we have made the relevant addition (see [1]).</div><div><br></div><div>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).</div><div><br></div><div>[1] <a href="http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Primer&diff=25887&oldid=25821">http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Primer&diff=25887&oldid=25821</a> </div><div><br></div><div>Please acknowledge receipt of this email to <<a href="mailto:public-owl-comments@w3.org">mailto:public-owl-comments@w3.org</a>> (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.</div><div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div>Ian Horrocks</div><div>on behalf of the W3C OWL Working Group</div><div><br></div><div><div>On 23 Sep 2009, at 09:53, Luigi Selmi wrote:</div><br class="ecxApple-interchange-newline"><blockquote><span class="ecxApple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px;">Hi All,<br>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:<br><br>1)<span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/PR-owl2-primer-20090922/#Class_Hierarchies">paragraph 4.2</a><span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span><br>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.. ><br>i would eliminate "this is intuitive as well since clearly, every person is a person etc" since it could be confusing rather than illustrative<br><br>2)<span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/PR-owl2-primer-20090922/#Object_Properties">paragraph 4.4</a><span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span><br>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. ><br>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<br>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.<br>See for example what TBL write about this issue<span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://www.jenitennison.com/blog/node/128#comment-5302">here</a><span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span><br><br>3)<span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/PR-owl2-primer-20090922/#Property_Restrictions">paragraph 5.2</a><span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span><br>Maybe can be added the line <Natural language indicators for the usage of existential quantification are words like "one" or “some” ><span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span><br><br>6)<span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/PR-owl2-primer-20090922/#Property_Characteristics">paragrafo 6.1</a><span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span><br>where is written: <it is also possible to indicate that the inverse of a given property is functional ><br>maybe it means "it is also possible to indicate that the inverse of a given functional property is functional too"<br><br>Regards<br><br>Luigi Selmi<br><br><br><br><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 255);"><div class="ecxEC_EC_EC_EC_EC_EC_EC_EC_EC_EC_EC_EC_EC_EC_EC_EC_EC_quotation-text"><span class="ecxEC_EC_EC_EC_EC_EC_EC_EC_EC_EC_EC_EC_EC_EC_EC_EC_EC_exhibit-value"></span>"It is easy to be certain. One only has to be sufficiently vague" - C.S. Peirce<br></div></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 255);">_______________________________<span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span><br>Luigi Selmi, MSc <br>addr.: 12 P.zza Roselle 00179 Rome, Italy <br>skype: luigiselmi<span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span><br></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 255);"><img src="http://www.sharesemantics.com/images/ss_logo1.png"><a href="http://www.sharesemantics.com" style="text-decoration: none; color: silver;"><strong>ShareSemantics</strong></a></div><br><br><br><hr>Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync.<span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_allup_explore_012009">Check it out!</a></span></blockquote></div><br> <br /><hr />Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync. <a href='http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_allup_explore_012009' target='_new'>Check it out!</a></body>
</html>
--_ef01cfee-5ca1-45db-8caf-4b8ef7c00e33_--
Received on Monday, 28 September 2009 07:32:14 UTC