- From: Rinke Hoekstra <hoekstra@uva.nl>
- Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 17:59:33 +0100
- To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
- Cc: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>, Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
I agree that the Manchester syntax is not as official as the others, but both Protege and TopBraid Composer use it extensively. In fact, I would not be surprised if many users are not even aware of the more official syntaxes. -Rinke On 21 jan 2008, at 17:43, Jim Hendler wrote: > I would prefer Turtle (which has at least some status) to Manchester > Syntax and/or OWL XML - let's at least add Turtle - it's easily > mappable to RDF/XML but more readable - and it does have a > recognized document behind it now as well as history of use in W3C > SWA documents. The Manchester syntax appears to be defined as the > research results of a project called "Co-ode" which seems not to > have any sort of imprimitur -- I would prefer we use Formal syntax, > RDF/XML and Turtle if we're going to use more than one. > -JH > > > On Jan 21, 2008, at 7:45 AM, Bijan Parsia wrote: > >> >> Thanks for the feedback on our first draft. I take it that you do >> like the technology perspective approach, at least in principle. >> On 21 Jan 2008, at 06:47, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: >> >>> These comments are on the Primer document http://webont.org/owl/documents/primer.html >>> as accessed late night 1/20/2007. They are detailed comments on >>> the Introduction an Orientation sections. Review of other sections >>> will follow. >>> >>> Summary: There are a number of places where I think the >>> descriptions don't adequately introduce OWL from the point of view >>> of someone embedded in the technology described, which I think is >>> important for drawing readers in. Ideally the orientations would >>> make affirmative statements about why people coming from >>> experiences with their technology might be interested in OWL, and >>> what they should not expect to find. >> >> We need to take care to balance breath and depth. I believe we can >> expect to "set the frame" adequately with this document, but then >> we should hope that people are inspired by this section to write >> more detailed perspectival discussions, or to go to lists, etc. >> >> So some sense of how much more text you think is reasonable for >> these intro sections would be good. >> >> Also, I think scattering some "NOTE FOR RDFERS: You can see blah >> balh balh" through the example discussion could be more helpful >> than adding a lot more upfront discussion. >> [snip] >> >>> Introduction doesn't mention important bits about design >>> considerations for OWL - that it there are known algorithms that >>> can give complete answers etc, and that is is designed to the most >>> expressive language for which one can do this, and why it is >>> important to aim for this. >> >> I'm not sure foregrounding this in this way is all that helpful. >> I'd rather talk about "yes and no" answers along the way. I mean, >> variable free syntax is an important design consideration as well >> historically, but I don't see it's good to *foreground* that. >> >> [snip] >>> "both OWL and XML have an object oriented approach" >>> >>> I don't consider OWL to be object oriented, >> >> This would seem to be a very much minority view. >> >>> and think this will confuse rather than help. >> >> Well, the point is for both XML and OOP sections are to say, >> roughly, Yes we have classes and objects, but don't rely on your >> understanding from other class/object pardigms. Actually, I think >> it's less important to say *what* the differences are than to make >> clear that there *are* radical differences. I.e., to "set the >> frame". If we say, "Whoa they are radically different" and the >> person doesn't get how, they are in a much better position to ask >> questions than if we *don't* say that they are radically different >> and they don't think to ask certain questions. >> >> In other words, I'd prefer that the fallback mode, in general, be >> "self aware" confusion than "unknowing misunderstanding". >> >> [snip] >>> Database use does not imply negation as failure. It doesn't offer >>> any support one way or another it seems to me, >> >> Again, this is not a particularly standard view. Canonically, >> relational dbs make the CWA and NAF. Consider how aggregation works. >> >>> whereas OWL offers support for querying over information that is >>> not explicit and not fully specified. >>> >>> There is no mention of very important difference, namely that >>> there are no integrity constraints in OWL. >> >> It's not clear to me that we should call this out as such, esp. up >> front. I'd rather have a discussion at the QCRs. >> >> [snip] >>> I don't think this will reach typical database users. It is too >>> theoretical. It needs to be more down to earth. Clearly there are >>> very obvious differences - transactions, triggers, replications - >>> a whole set of considerations that OWL does not deal with. >> >> Some of these are features of *systems* not the modeling formalism. >> It'll probably help to make that distinction a bit, though again, >> I'd prefer to be a bit subtler. Discussing ER diagrams might be >> more useful. >> >> [snip] >>> Object-oriented Programming. >>> >>> Again, focus on information completeness won't resonate with oo >>> types. First they have to be told the "further stuff" and then >>> why, despite this, they might be interested in OWL. >> >> I intend to stress the "Template" vs. "description" perspectives >> (plus the lack of behavior). This will need to be synched more with >> the XML and RDBMS discussions. The RDF discussion perhaps should >> come last. >> >> In my discussions from people coming from XML/OOPy background, this >> has been the most helpful for them. >> >> Cheers, >> Bijan. >> > > "If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research, > would it?." - Albert Einstein > > Prof James Hendler http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~hendler > Tetherless World Constellation Chair > Computer Science Dept > Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY 12180 > > > > ----------------------------------------------- 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 Monday, 21 January 2008 16:59:45 UTC