- From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
- Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 18:18:03 -0400
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: jjc@hpl.hp.com, public-owl-wg@w3.org
Peter asks that we bring up comments on the documents proposed to be moved - here's my major comments on the structural specification. 1 - Structural Specification. I am not convinced this document moves forward the use of OWL, and instead forces an entirely new syntax on a community that is finally learning to use N3 and RDF as OWL specs, which is also what most tools currently consume and produce. I think the drawings are quite useful, but I find the syntax to be difficult to teach and to use as it is not the natural thing for me the way it is for some people trained in this area. It's not that I couldn't learn, but I question why, to learn to use a Semantic Web language I have to learn yet another syntax. I also object to some of the same things in this syntax that I objected to when an attempt was made for OWL 1.0 to use the "abstract syntax" normatively. i. While it is nice that there is a notion of locality in the document, I think it a positive and desirable feature that OWL documents can have properties and classes intermixed and partially defined in many parts of a document. The non-linear nature (for lack of a better term) of RDF is a positive I don't want to lose ii. The namespace issues that Jeremy mentions are quite blurred in this document iii. I think the document introduces many terms into the structural definitions that may or may not end up having actual vocabulary terms associated with them in the OWL/RDF that results. This means that someone trying to learn OWL through this document cannot understand easily by the end what is, and is not, in the vocabulary. For example, picking one of many at random, will "owl:dataComplementOf" be in the set of terms we are recommending or won't it? there are many other features that make it hard to know what is actually being proposed as language structures and what aren't iv. Appendix A makes some strange claims like: "For example, one can assert the following axiom in OWL 1.0: ObjectProperty(hasPart inverse isPartOf) " which is not true - only the abstract syntax of OWL (not part of the recommendation as a normative way to exchange OWL documents) allows that - in OWL one would say (in N3, I really should do it in proper RDF but this is faster:) :haspart a owl:ObjectProperty; inverse :isPartOf. So I believe the document, without more explanation of what it is about (i.e. is this a replacement for the Abstract Syntax or something more) and without changes that make it clear what was and was not in OWL 1.0 will confuse a large portion of OWL users and require considerable effort and learning for those who have already learned and use OWL regularly. v. The use of authors, over editors, is somewhat at odds with the use of these terms in the W3C (http://www.w3.org/2001/06/manual/ #Editors) In short, I don't see the structural syntax being needed on the Rec track without at least a significantly better explanation of its use, its need, and its role in the new recommendations (i.e. is it a presentation syntax, is it the definition of new terms, is it the abstract syntax for logical clarity.
Received on Monday, 22 October 2007 22:20:47 UTC