- From: Vojtech Svatek <Svatek@vse.cz>
- Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 16:20:55 +0200
- To: "Boris Motik" <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Cc: "'Kaarel Kaljurand'" <kaljurand@gmail.com>, <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
I would see it differently. Each form has a different purpose. The OWL-bound form merely helps 'read' the formula correctly, so that e.g. the argument positions are not erroneously swapped. On the other hand, the NL form helps reveal a 'deeper' or 'less obvious' meaning (but there might be a mental gap between this and the original OWL code). So, for *some* constructions I would see the combination of both as justified. OTOH, if you care for space, I would actually suggest to remove most of the recurring transcriptions of the same thing. In particular, I expect that 90% of the readers understand the set-theoretic interpretation of 'subclassOf' before starting to read the spec, and the remaining ones do not need more than 1-2 exemplifications before getting the point. Best Vojtech ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Vojtech Svatek, University of Economics, Prague Nam.W.Churchilla 4, 13067 Praha 3, CZECH REPUBLIC phone: +420 224095495, e-mail: svatek@vse.cz web: http://nb.vse.cz/~svatek -----"Boris Motik" <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk> napsal: ----- >Komu: "'Vojtech Svatek'" <Svatek@vse.cz> >Od: "Boris Motik" <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk> >Datum: 14.09.2008 23:24 >Kopie: "'Kaarel Kaljurand'" <kaljurand@gmail.com>, ><public-owl-wg@w3.org> >Předmět: RE: English examples in the OWL 2 syntax specification > >Hello, > >Using both forms might be really awkward. There is not that much >space and I don't really know how to link the two sentences >together. Using two forms seems to me like saying "We weren't able to >decide". > >Regards, > > Boris > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org >[mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Vojtech Svatek >> Sent: 14 September 2008 21:16 >> To: Boris Motik >> Cc: 'Kaarel Kaljurand'; public-owl-wg@w3.org >> Subject: RE: English examples in the OWL 2 syntax specification >> >> >> Hi Boris, all, >> >> My (instant) suggestion would be: >> - to use *both* forms when the particular construct is used for the >first >> time, for sure >> - then to only use one of them (to reduce verbosity), probably the >natural >> language one. >> >> I definitely advise to systematically use, in a single example, >either the >> names with the prefix ('a:') or the common names only. To say, >either we >> talk about a relationship of semantic web entities: "a:Brian is a >a:Dog" >> (referring to an individual identified by a URL, and a class from >the >> particular ontology), or "Brian is a dog" (which means that the >identity of >> the individual and the set-theoretic meaning of the 'dog' concept >follow, >> considering the sentence by itself, from some context - which >merely >> happens to coincide with the mentioned URIs). >> >> Regards >> Vojtech >> >> >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >- >> Vojtech Svatek, University of Economics, Prague >> Nam.W.Churchilla 4, 13067 Praha 3, CZECH REPUBLIC >> phone: +420 224095495, e-mail: svatek@vse.cz >> web: http://nb.vse.cz/~svatek >> >> >> >> -----public-owl-wg-request@w3.org napsal: ----- >> >> >Komu: "'Kaarel Kaljurand'" <kaljurand@gmail.com>, >> ><public-owl-wg@w3.org> >> >Od: "Boris Motik" <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk> >> >Odeslal: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org >> >Datum: 14.09.2008 21:59 >> >Předmět: RE: English examples in the OWL 2 syntax specification >> > >> > >> >(I redirected this discussion to public-owl-wg, because I feel >this >> >is a more appropriate list.) >> > >> >Hello, >> > >> >Thanks a lot for this analysis -- it is certainly important to >make >> >the examples as consistent as possible. >> > >> >Before I change the examples, though, I believe we need to decide >on >> >the purpose of the English examples. I included them into the >> >spec because I felt that many readers could benefit from an >intuitive >> >explanation what a particular axiom means. At first, I tried >> >not to use the actual OWL elements in the example; thus, I would >> >explain an axiom >> > >> >SubClassOf( a:Child a:Person ) >> > >> >with the sentence "Children are people". But then, some people >> >complained about such paraphrasing of the axioms: they felt that >> >this >> >was imprecise. Instead, they thought we should paraphrase this >axiom >> >as "Each instance of a:Child is an instance of a:Person as >> >well" -- that is, to use a more modeling-centric view. I updated >much >> >of the spec; however, I did not know myself what to do in many >> >cases. Thus, it is highly likely that the examples are >inconsistent. >> > >> >Now the question is really what approach to adopt. I still >believe >> >that having some kind of English explanation would be very >> >useful. I'd like to hear from others about what kind of approach >to >> >adopt there -- a more natural-language one or a more OWL-centric >> >one. >> > >> >Thanks again -- I find this analysis really useful. >> > >> >Regards, >> > >> > Boris >> > >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: public-owl-dev-request@w3.org >> >[mailto:public-owl-dev-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Kaarel >> >> Kaljurand >> >> Sent: 14 September 2008 20:26 >> >> To: public-owl-dev@w3.org >> >> Subject: English examples in the OWL 2 syntax specification >> >> >> >> >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> I extracted all the examples from the OWL 2 Syntax >specification >> >(a >> >> revision from >> >> the end of August) to see how the specification expresses the >OWL >> >> axioms in English. >> >> After sorting the examples by the axioms, many irregularities >in >> >the >> >> English expressions >> >> were revealed. I think most of the irregularities are >> >unintended/unwanted. >> >> >> >> See the report: >> >> >> >> >> >>http://www.cl.uzh.ch/kalju/ontologies/OWL_spec/owl_spec_examples.htm >l >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> >> kaarel >>
Received on Monday, 15 September 2008 14:31:30 UTC