Re: general review of NF&R

Hi Peter

Thank you for your review and welcome offer to help.
I have started to reduce and fixed some parts this morning (see below)

2009/3/31 Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>:
> Review of NF&R
>
>
> General Comments:
>
> 1: NF&R is becoming too much for too many things.  I would much prefer a
> cut-down version that concentrates on what NF&R is supposed to be - an
> overview of the new stuff in OWL 2 as related to the use cases and other
> rationale that the WG has identified.  I actually don't mind the overall
> organization of NF&R, just its length.
>
> 2: There are quite a few changes needed to fix grammatical and wording
> problems in the document and to reduce the amount of unneeded prose.  I
> have made detailed edits up to Section 2.2.2 on my paper copy of the
> document and can apply them to the document if it is so desired.

> Here is my changed version of the start of Section 2:
>
> *******************************************************
> == Features & Rationale ==
>
> OWL 2 is an update to OWL adding several new features, including
> increased expressive power for properties, extended support
> for datatypes, simple metamodeling capabilities, extended annotation
> capabilities, and keys. OWL 2 also defines several profiles &ndash;
> OWL 2 language subsets that may better meet certain performance
> requirements or may be easier to implement. The new OWL 2 features
> are presented here, organized in the following categories:
>
> # syntactic sugar to make some common statements easier to say,
> # new constructs that increase expressivity,
> # extended support for datatypes,
> # simple metamodeling capabilities,
> # extended annotation capabilities, and
> # other innovations.
>
> Each feature is described in a common pattern as follows:
> * a brief sentence explaining why the new feature was added,
> * a feature description including a informal meaning, informal syntax, and a simple example issued from Use Cases,
> * the theoretical and implementation implications of the new feature, and
> * links to related use cases.

done

> === Syntactic sugar ===
>
> OWL 2 adds syntactic sugar to make some common patterns easier to write.

done

> ==== F1: [http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Syntax#Disjoint_Union_of_Class_Expressions DisjointUnion]====
>
> While OWL 1 provides means to define a set of subclasses as a disjoint
> and complete covering of a superclass by using several axioms, this
> cannot be done concisely.
> <span class="nonterminal">DisjointUnion</span> defines a class as the
> union of other classes, all of which are pairwise disjoint. It is a
> shorthand for owl:disjointWith statements used in combination with
> owl:unionOf to define a complete superclass from a set of mutually
> disjoint subclasses.
> [[http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Syntax#Disjoint_Union_of_Class_Expressions Normative Syntax]]
> [[http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Direct_Semantics#Class_Expression_Axioms Direct Semantics]]
> [[http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/RDF-Based_Semantics#Semantic_Conditions_for_Equivalence_and_Disjointness_Axioms RDF-Based Semantics]]
>
> <div class="grammar">
> <span class="nonterminal">DisjointUnion</span> <span class="name">({ A } C CE<sub>1</sub> ... CE<sub>n</sub> )</span> where <span class="name">C</span> is a class,  <span class="name">CE<sub>i</sub></span>, 1 &le; i &le; n are class expressions, and { A }  zero or more annotations.
> </div>
>
> <div class="anexample">
> * HCLS
> <div class="axioms">
> {| class="axioms"
> |-
> | class="name" | DisjointUnion(''BrainHemisphere'' ''LeftHemisphere'' ''RightHemisphere'' ) (''UC#2'')
> | A ''BrainHemisphere'' is exclusively either a ''LeftHemisphere'' or a ''RightHemisphere'' and cannot be both a ''RightHemisphere'' and a ''LeftHemisphere''.
> |-
> |''-- RDF --''
> |
> |-
> | ''BrainHemisphere'' ''owl:disjointUnionOf'' ( ''LeftHemisphere'' ''RightHemisphere'' )
> |
> |-
> |''-------''
> |
> |-
> | class="name" | DisjointUnion(''Lobe''  ''FrontalLobe''  ''ParietalLobe''  ''TemporalLobe''  ''OccipitalLobe'' ''LimbicLobe'') (''UC#1'')
> | A ''Lobe'' is exclusively either a ''FrontalLobe'' , a ''ParietalLobe'', a  ''TemporalLobe'', a ''OccipitalLobe'' or a ''LimbicLobe'' and cannot be both of them.
> |-
> | class="name" | DisjointUnion(''AmineGroup'' ''PrimaryAmineGroup'' ''SecondaryAmineGroup'' ''TertiaryAmineGroup'' ) (''UC#3'')
> |An ''AmineGroup'' is exclusively either a ''PrimaryAmineGroup'', a ''SecondaryAmineGroup'' or a ''TertiaryAmineGroup'' and cannot be both of them.
> |-
> |}
> </div>
>
> * Automotive industry
>
> <div class="axioms">
> {| class="axioms"
> |-
> | class="name" | DisjointUnion(CarDoor FrontDoor RearDoor TrunkDoor) (''UC#4'')
> | A ''CarDoor'' is exclusively either a ''FrontDoor'', a ''RearDoor'' or a''TrunkDoor'' and not both of them.
> |-
> |}
> </div>
> </div>
>
> Since <span class="name">DisjointUnion</span> is simply a shorthand for
> several ''disjointWith'' statements in combination with unionOf, it does
> not change the expressiveness, semantics, or complexity of the language.
> Implementations, however, may prefer to take special notice of
> DisjointUnion for more efficient processing.
>
> [[#Use_Case_.231_-_Brain_image_annotation_for_neurosurgery_.5BHCLS.5D|Use Case #1]] [[#Use_Case_.232_.E2.80.93_The_Foundational_Model_of_Anatomy_.5BHCLS.5D|Use Case #2]] [[#Use_Case_.233_-_Classification_of_chemical_compounds_.5BHCLS.5D|Use Case #3]] [[#Use_Case_.234_-_Querying_multiple_sources_in_an_automotive_company_.5BAutomotive.5D|Use Case #4]]'''
>
> *******************************************************
>
>
>
> Changes:
>
> 0/ Abstract
>
>  OWL 2 provides new features over the previous version of OWL.  This
>  document provides a description of these new features and other design
>  choices that went into OWL 2, along with their rationale, based on use
>  cases provided to the W3C OWL Working Group.
>
> 1/ Introduction
>
>  This document provides brief overviews of the main new features of OWL
>  2 and their rationale. These language features were determined based
>  on real applications and user and tool-developer experience, some of
>  which has been documented in the OWLED Workshop Series [...].  The
>  inclusion of the features are supported by use cases provided to the
>  W3C OWL Working Group, which are listed in an appendix.
>
>  This document also describes and motivates some of the other design
>  decisions that were made during the development of OWL 2 or
>  purposefully retained from OWL 1, particularly the various concrete
>  syntaxes for OWL 2, and the relationship of OWL 2 with RDF.
>
>  OWL 2 extends the previous OWL Web Ontology Language (OWL 1) [OWL ??]
>  and inherits the language features, design decisions, and use cases
>  for OWL 1.  This document thus forms an extension of the Use Cases and
>  Requirements that underlie OWL 1 [OWL Use Cases and Requirements].
>
> Remove the last paragraph of the introduction.  It is not needed.

Done

> 2/ Features and Rationale
>
> There is no need for the "Feature", ... tags.

This division was required earlier by group members. I only kept 2
tags and gathered Theory and Implementation within a single shorter
paragraph

> Changes similar to those above should be made throughout Section 2.

I did a first pass according your pattern given for F#1 and cut some
useless sentences.

> 3/ Other Design Choices and Rational
>
> This section should also be slimmed down.

to be done

> 4/ Illustrative Use Cases
>
> 4.1/
>
> This subsection only repeats information in Section 2, and should be
> removed.

moved to the Appendix

> 4.2/
>
> Why are some features given by name and others by number?  This should
> be made consistent.  The legend is also unnecessary, as the information
> is in Section 2.
>
improved the explanation above the Table



-- 
Christine

Received on Wednesday, 1 April 2009 09:30:52 UTC