- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2008 23:37:02 -0400
- To: poole@cs.ubc.ca
- Cc: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, public-owl-wg Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On Apr 4, 2008, at 6:22 AM, Ivan Herman wrote: > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Comment on OWL 1.1 > Resent-Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2008 09:53:06 +0000 > Resent-From: public-webont-comments@w3.org > Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2008 23:05:03 -0700 > From: David Poole <poole@cs.ubc.ca> > To: public-webont-comments@w3.org > > > Hi! > > Here are some random comments on the OWL 1.1 proposal. I am writing > this with two roles: we are writing ontologies in OWL and we are > writing an introductory AI textbook and want to include OWL. My main > comments are with the second role. We want to keep it simple, but not > oversimplify; which, as you know, is difficult. > > 1. Getting rid of "onProperty" is good (this is the main reason I > would rather use 1.1 than 1.0 in our book). Hmm, still seems to be there - could you clarify? See http:// www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Mapping_to_RDF_Graphs > > 2. There is too much proliferation of terms. It is *much* better to > have just ObjectProperty and DatatypeProperty and use these > conjoined with the other class constructors or properties, rather > than duplicating virtually every class constructor. This is one > area where 1.1 is worse than than 1.0 for no apparent gain. We have just resolved to do this in the recent F2F. > The 1.1 constructs are less expressive and more verbose than 1.0 > constructs with no particular advantage. For example, I may want to > write an axiom that only depends on whether the property is > functional, and not care if it is an object property or a > functional property. In the 1.1 constructs it is a real pain to > do this. > > 3. You need to make up your mind what the elements of a class > are. They either should be "individuals" or "objects" (I don't care > which, but please be consistent), then use this terminology > consistently in OWL and in the documentation. > - If you want to use "object" then have "ObjectProperty" is a > property whose value is an object. But then you should have > "sameObject" not "sameIndividual". > - If you want to use "individual" then you should have > "IndividualProperty" is a property whose value is an individual. > > At the moment you state in the http://www.w3.org/TR/owl11-syntax/ > that "OWL 1.1 objects (ontologies, axioms, etc.)" but then > ObjectProperty is a property whose value is an individual. The > terminology should be consistent between the syntax and the > semantics documents and the language itself. This is a point that I hadn't seen raised before, and is a good observation. We may be somewhat handicapped by backwards compatibility issues with the RDF vocabulary, but let's see what people think about the functional style syntax. > Thanks for the work you have put into this! And thanks for your comments! We have a new set of documents about to be released for public comment, and would certainly appreciate your feedback. I give you the wiki links below, but I expect the released versions to be out end of next week. http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Profiles http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Primer http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/XML_Serialization -Alan > > David > > -- > David Poole, poole@cs.ubc.ca > Department of Computer Science, http://www.cs.ubc.ca/spider/poole > University of British Columbia, Office: +1 (604) 822-6254 > Vancouver, B.C., Canada V6T 1Z4 Fax: +1 (604) 822-5485 > > > > -- > > Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead > Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ > PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html > FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Sunday, 6 April 2008 03:37:38 UTC