- From: Rinke Hoekstra <hoekstra@uva.nl>
- Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 16:36:20 +0000
- To: "Deborah L. McGuinness" <dlm@ksl.stanford.edu>
- Cc: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Hi All,
The discussion about UFD's had me look back to when I was first
reading the OWL 1.0 documents a few years ago. What was really
confusing to me, was that both the Guide and the Reference have almost
identical coverage of the spec, but from a differing perspective. Of
course, the guide adds a story line (the wines), and the reference is
just an iteration of all language elements. However, for both, the
level of detail is almost identical. Take for instance the sections on
enumerated classes and disjointness:
OWL 1.0 Guide/Overview
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-guide-20040210/#EnumeratedClasses
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-guide-20040210/#DisjointClasses
OWL 1.0 Reference
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-ref-20040210/#EnumeratedClass
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-ref-20040210/#disjointWith-def
FWIW, I think the duplication was really confusing ("where did I read
this?"), and we should try to avoid this for 1.1 so I really vote for
a single 'document' that combines the two (and the new owl 1.1
overview). Nonetheless the difference in the way in which the language
is presented to the reader *is* probably relevant, something we could
overcome by maintaining two orthogonal tables of contents.
Is there a particular reason why these should be separate real (i.e.
monolithic, linear) documents, and not closely interlinked
'perspectives' on the same content?
-Rinke
On 7 dec 2007, at 15:41, Deborah L. McGuinness wrote:
>
> I liked Evan Wallace's suggestion yesterday for an Overview that was
> something in between the OWL 1.0 Overview and the OWL 1.1 member
> submission overview (without any species emphasis).
> I took a stab at operationalizing that a bit with a proposed
> outline. I had asked some people to a short lunch meeting to discuss
> this suggestion. Since we did not get to discuss this proposal (as
> we discussed some needs and bijan's proposal to combine the overview
> and guide) so i thought i would send it out to the working group for
> comments.
>
> (to the people i sent this to prior to our lunch meeting, this is
> the same but with an intro to kr section aimed to address the
> concern that one needs some kr background to read the current 1.0
> overview. )
>
> Deborah
>
> =================================
>
>
> Evan’s Proposal: An introductory document between OWL 1.1 Overview
> and OWL Overview from Rec. (without the species of OWL emphasis)
>
>
> Uli’s proposal – annotate the previous document with pointers to
> material
>
>
> OWL 1.0 Original Outline http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features/
>
> 1. Introduction
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-features-20040210/#s1>
> 1. Document Roadmap
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-features-20040210/#s1.1>
> 2. Why OWL?
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-features-20040210/#s1.2>
> 3. The three sublanguages of OWL
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-features-20040210/#s1.3>
> 4. The structure of this document
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-features-20040210/#s1.4>
> 2. Language Synopsis
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-features-20040210/#s2>
> 1. OWL Lite Synopsis
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-features-20040210/#s2.1>
> 2. OWL DL and OWL Full Synopsis
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-features-20040210/#s2.2>
> 3. Language Description of OWL Lite
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-features-20040210/#s3>
> 1. OWL Lite RDF Schema Features
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-features-20040210/#s3.1>
> 2. OWL Lite Equality and Inequality
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-features-20040210/#s3.2>
> 3. OWL Lite Property Characteristics
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-features-20040210/#s3.3>
> 4. OWL Lite Property Restrictions
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-features-20040210/#s3.4>
> 5. OWL Lite Restricted Cardinality
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-features-20040210/#s3.5>
> 6. OWL Lite Class Intersection
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-features-20040210/#s3.6>
> 7. OWL Datatypes
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-features-20040210/#s3.7>
> 8. OWL Lite Header Information
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-features-20040210/#s3.8>
> 9. OWL Lite Annotation Properties
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-features-20040210/#s3.9>
> 10. OWL Lite Versioning
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-features-20040210/#s3.10>
> 4. Incremental Language Description of OWL DL and OWL Full
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-features-20040210/#s4>
> 5. Summary <http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-features-20040210/#s5>
>
> *OWL 1.1 Member Submission Outline http://www.w3.org/Submission/owl11-overview/*
>
> · Overview <http://www.w3.org/Submission/owl11-overview/#1>
>
> · 2 Features <http://www.w3.org/Submission/owl11-overview/#2>
>
> * 2.1 Syntactic Sugar <http://www.w3.org/Submission/owl11-overview/#2.1
> >
> * 2.2 /SROIQ/ <http://www.w3.org/Submission/owl11-overview/#2.2>
> * 2.3 Datatypes <http://www.w3.org/Submission/owl11-overview/#2.2>
> * 2.4 Metamodeling <http://www.w3.org/Submission/owl11-overview/
> #2.2>
>
> · References <http://www.w3.org/Submission/owl11-overview/#references>
>
> *Potential New Overview*
>
> 1 Introduction <http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-features-20040210/#s1
> >
>
> 1. Document Roadmap
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-features-20040210/#s1.1>
> 2. Intro to KR (as needed to read this doc)
> 3. Why OWL?
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-features-20040210/#s1.2>
> 4. New section – OWL 1.1 motivations and addition highlights
> (much taken from owl 1.1 overview)
> 5. The structure of this document
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-features-20040210/#s1.4>
>
> 2. Language Synopsis <http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-features-20040210/#s2
> > (note – no organization by species)
>
> 3. Language Description
>
> a. OWL RDF Schema Features <http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-features-20040210/#s3.1
> >
>
> b. OWL Equality and Inequality <http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-features-20040210/#s3.2
> >
>
> c. OWL Property Characteristics <http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-features-20040210/#s3.3
> > (include new extensions local reflexivity, reflexive, irreflexive,
> symmetric, and antisymmetric for non-complex)
>
> d. OWL Property Restrictions <http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-features-20040210/#s3.4
> > (include disjoint properties maybe property chain inclusions here)
>
> e. OWL Cardinality <http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-features-20040210/#s3.5
> > (remove lite limitations, include qualified cardinality here)
>
> f. hasValue, one of (used to be in owl dl section)
>
> g. OWL Boolean operators (old intersection for lite, dl Booleans)
>
> h. OWL Datatypes <http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-features-20040210/#s3.7
> > (include new owl 1.1 info here)
>
> i. OWL Header Information <http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-features-20040210/#s3.8
> >
>
> j. OWL Annotation Properties <http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-features-20040210/#s3.9
> >
>
> k. OWL Versioning <http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-features-20040210/#s3.10
> >
>
> l. Syntactic sugar
>
> m. Metamodeling
>
> 4. Summary <http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-features-20040210/#s5>
>
> Just a note – the 1.0 overview says “This OWL Overview <http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features/
> > gives a simple introduction to OWL by providing a language feature
> listing with very brief feature descriptions;”
>
>
>
>
>
>
-----------------------------------------------
Drs. Rinke Hoekstra
Email: hoekstra@uva.nl Skype: rinkehoekstra
Phone: +31-20-5253499 Fax: +31-20-5253495
Web: http://www.leibnizcenter.org/users/rinke
Leibniz Center for Law, Faculty of Law
University of Amsterdam, PO Box 1030
1000 BA Amsterdam, The Netherlands
-----------------------------------------------
Received on Friday, 7 December 2007 16:36:31 UTC