Re: F2F resolutions and document changes

Hi Ivan

Thank you very much for your review of the Requirements/OWL2 New
Features at [1].
Below I commented the revisions I have done to address your comments.
These revisions are included in the updated version of the document at
[1]. Please let me know how you find them.

Thanks

Christine

[1] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/OWL2NewFeatures


2008/11/3 Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>:
> Christine,
>
> I have very small comments only, all editorial
>
> - 2.2.2: although the formal spec makes it clear that the, say,
> MinCardinality construct in the functional spec encompasses both the new
> usage and the OWL 1 restrictions (ClassExpression being optional) it may
> be good to emphasize that for OWL 1 readers.

emphasized 'both' in italic in  the Feature description:
"both qualified or unqualified cardinality restrictions are possible"

> This is all the more
> important because in the RDF mapping there is actually a fork, and the
> cardinality with an explicit class is mapped on a different term than
> the one without... Is there an example in the Use Cases that could be
> added that does _not_ use a class? That could be added, for example.

added an example with an explicit comment

> - 2.2.5: I wonder whether it is possible to give a short (though not
> necessarily complete) description of the global restrictions on how to
> use property chains. The current text refers to the syntax document
> which is, well, not really easy to read and certainly on the level of
> the readers of this document....

Agree,  but it's rather challenging : global restrictions are not
trivial ... and as said in the syntax, it's rather technical, it's why
I refered to it :-)
I'll see whether I might add something simple, and still correct
without going into too much details, but it's not sure.

> - 2.2.6: AFAIK, and the functional syntax seems to say that, a key can
> be both a datatype and an object property. However, the text suggests
> otherwise: "However, keys, aka inverse functional datatype properties"
> which might lead to the user that only datatype properties can be used
> in this position.

OK, revised it

> I also wonder whether it is possible to find an example where more than
> one properties appear in the HasKey clause. The fact that one can define
> an instance through the combination of properties is very powerful and
> would deserve more emphasis there...

added

> - 2.3.1: I think it is worth emphasizing that we also have owl:real as a
> special datatype, as well as rdf:text. The current text suggests that we
> use 'most XML Schema datatypes' which suggests that we use a subset of
> those. Which is true but we also have some others...

revised this section

> - 2.3.2: just flagging this; afaik, we do not have a decision on the
> inclusion of n-ary datatypes yet...

added an Editor Note

> - 2.5.1: it might be good to have examples for the (new) possibilities
> of defining ranges and domains for annotations and defining sub
> properties for annotations. I am not sure any of the use cases have
> that, though...

I'm waiting for their inclusion in the syntax doc, to give an example
in the right syntax.

> - It may be worth adding the top and bottom object properties to
> features. Boris had some great example for the type of expression one
> might have with those around.

I don't remember Boris' examples.  But an example from a real UC might
be the top property used for the RO ontology (ontology of relations)
as a root of the relations ?
However, as some members said at the F2F, their use is a little
dangerous. So do we really want  to stress these properties in adding
a new feature for them ?

> I hope this helps!
>
> Thanks a lot
>
> Ivan
>
> Christine Golbreich wrote:
>> A revised version of the Requirement is now available at
>> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/OWL2NewFeatures.
>>
>> It is based on the discussions & strawpolls at the F2F and review comments.
>> The objective of this updated version "New Features & Rationale", is
>> to focus on an overview of the new features that have been added to
>> OWL 2 and of their rationale. Find below the main changes:
>>
>> - renamed "Requirements" into "New Features & Rationale"
>> - moved the core section "Features" up,  to be the first, as unanimously agreed
>> - rolled sections 4 (req) into 5 (features)
>> - moved the use cases to an appendix, as wished by the majority (strawpoll)
>> - refered to the UCs from the section "features"
>> - cut section 2 (users and applications), as proposed mainly by Bijan
>> - completed and updated some features
>> - All the UCs  in the Appendix follow a common  pattern as asked
>> Elis'as review earlier: Overview, Features, Example, Literature.
>> - separated References and UCs Biblio
>>
>> There might still be  some polishing to do (add links, etc. ) but it
>> gives a good idea of the new proposed version.
>> It would be helpful now to check whether all content is up-to-date
>> w.r.t last decisions in particular at the F2F or wherther the document
>> should be fixed in some places.
>>
>> All your comments and feedback are welcome.
>>
>> Christine

Received on Tuesday, 4 November 2008 22:59:54 UTC