- From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 10:17:11 +0100
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
As per your suggestion I removed the one sentence explanation of the meaning of "to all intents and purposes", replacing it with a pointer to NF&R. This will need to be fixed to a more precise reference to the location of the relevant section when it has been added. I heard different opinions about Figure 2, so I didn't do anything on that pending a decision from the WG. It seems slightly ridiculous for such a minor issue, but I suggest that we put it on this weeks agenda for discussion and disposition vote on it. Ian On 3 Apr 2009, at 20:02, Sandro Hawke wrote: > >>>>> 2.4/ Profiles: >> >>>>> Remove Figure 2, as it serves no useful purpose. >> >> I'm baffled as to what purpose you think this figure serves and why >> its loss will be mourned. AFAICT, the information content of the >> figure is: >> ... > > It's not intended to provide additional information; it's about > presentation. It's intended to make the relationship between the > profiles feel as simple as it actually is. A simple-looking diagram > conveys that feeling much more effectively, I think, than the text. > > But perhaps that's just me, so I'm okay with letting it go until/ > unless > others speak up for it. > >>>>> Could remove the subsection headers, as the subsections are all >>>>> very >>>>> short. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Change "albeit under a possibly different name." to >>>>> "albeit possibly under different names." >>>>> >>>>> Remove "; it also has a formal equivalence to UML [UML]." >>>>> This is just *wrong*. >>>>> >>>>> 3.2: >>>>> Just put this stuff elsewhere (perhaps in Primer). >>>> >>>> I significantly shortened the whole of Section 3 and pointed to >>>> NF&R >>>> for detailed explanation/documentation. >>>> >>>> I also renamed it "Relationship to OWL 1" as this seems more >>>> appropriate and avoids the negative connotations of "differences". >>> >>> Very nice, except that we need a link explaining the "almost"s in >>> paragraph two to a place with text like Peter and I were crafting >>> yesterday. If I were an OWL 2 user, I would insist the text >>> actually be >>> normative, too. (I guess there's no problem with a little normative >>> text in NF&R.) >>> >>> Am I the only one who thinks OWL 1 users will want to know, in no >>> uncertain terms, whether OWL 2 breaks their stuff, BEFORE they >>> accept >>> OWL 2? >> >> This is *exactly* what I am trying to achieve here. >> >>> Figuring that out by sifting through our entire spec seems a bit >>> much to ask. >> >> That isn't the intention. The intention is to tell them that >> everything is fine, *which it is*. IMHO this message, we should *not* >> provide irrelevant information about the corner cases and "bug-fixes" >> in OWL 2 that prevent us from simply saying that it is *completely* >> backwards compatible with OWL 1 -- this does need to be documented >> somewhere, but not here (not sure if it should be normative and/or in >> NF&R, but this is a different issue that I will address in another >> email). >> >> I changed what is said here to make the message even more clear: it >> now says that "backwards compatibility with OWL 1 is, to all intents >> and purposes, complete" and that inferences are identical "in all >> practical cases". I also added a note explaining that "even the >> theoretical possibility of different entailments arises only from a >> change in the treatment of annotations in the Direct Semantics [OWL 2 >> Direct Semantics] that reflects what was typically implemented in OWL >> 1 systems". I'm ambivalent about this note -- we could simply say >> "see XXX for more details". > > Okay, yeah, I think this works. I'd leave off the note and put a link > to the appropriate non-normative section of NF&R, so if people want to > double check whether they agree with our notion of "all intents and > purposes" and "impractical", they easily can. > >> BTW, given that the differences in entailments only affect OWL DL and >> derive from changes in the Direct Semantics, it seems to me that this >> is the right place to document them. > > I'd lean towards having the change descriptions grouped together, for > those people who care about the changes. In the future, hopefully, > folks reading the OWL 2 DL specs wont care how it differed from OWL 1 > DL. > > -- Sandro
Received on Monday, 6 April 2009 09:17:47 UTC