Re: Private review of the Document Overview

Thanks for the careful reading and useful comments -- I believe that  
I dealt with most of them.

Ian

On 10 Apr 2009, at 13:34, Michael Schneider wrote:

> Hi!
>
> I finally found the time to have a look at the Document Overview.  
> All my points are editorial and probably simple to cope with.
>
> Best,
> Michael
>
> * General: Consider writing all names (of syntaxes, semantics, etc)  
> with capitalized letters. It's a bit incoherent at the moment.

I'm leaving this for a WG decision on what is appropriate (after LC)!

>
> * Abstract, 2nd par: The term "various" is used in two consecutive  
> sentences. Choose a synonym for one of the two occurrences.

Deleted the 2nd various as it was superfluous.

>
> * Table of Contents: The "[Show Short TOC]" link seems exaggerated  
> for this short document. Consider removing it (it's actually not in  
> all our documents, e.g. not in the Direct Semantics).

I would, but somebody seems to have beaten me to it.

>
> * §1 (Introduction), last par: "OWL 1 and OWL 2 are designed  
> to ...". Perhaps better something like: "As OWL 1, OWL 2 is  
> designed..." The document, after all, is a document about OWL 2.

OK

>
> * §2, Figure, syntax layer: Write the full names of the syntaxes,  
> i.e. avoid "M'ter. syntax" or "func. syntax". If necessary, use  
> three lines: "Manchester/Syntax/document".
>
> * §2, Figure, syntax layer: "turtle" is written "Turtle" (capital  
> "T") later in the text. So should be in the figure, either.
>
> * §2, Figure, semantics layer: "RDF Based Semantics" in Semantics  
> layer: add the "-" between "RDF" and "Based".

I agree with all three of the above comments, but I don't control the  
figure. Fine if Sandro/Ivan can fix it, but I don't believe that any  
are critical for LC -- but let's not forget to fix them later.

>
> * §2.2 (Syntaxes), 2nd par: "an XML serialization". Dangerous after  
> this LC phase! It should become clear that this is a specific XML  
> serialization that closely reflects the structure of OWL  
> constructs, and that it is clearly distinguished from RDF/XML.

I'm not sure if this wouldn't add to any danger: questions might  
arise as to why other syntaxes *don't* closely reflect the structure  
of the constructs, and the "clearly distinguished" part sounds like  
"protesting to much".

>
> * §2.2 (Syntaxes), 2nd par: "and a more readable syntax used in  
> several ontology editing tools [OWL 2 Manchester Syntax]".
> ** Please explicitly say the name of that syntax! Currently, one  
> only sees it from the citation mark, and the format of citation  
> marks is possibly going to change in the future.
> ** Put the citation mark directly behind the name of the syntax  
> then. Currently, it looks as if the citation mark refers to  
> "ontology editing tools".

OK

>
> * §2.2 (Syntaxes), 2nd par: "the functional-style syntax can also  
> be used for serialization, although its main purpose is specifying  
> the structure of the language". Can we say this about its purpose?  
> I thought the structure of the language is primarily specified by  
> the UML diagrams, although the functional syntax closely  
> corresponds to the diagrams. Maybe, it's better to say something  
> like that the "main purpose is to serve as an abstract syntax for  
> the language"? This would also make sense in this context.

Maybe. I'll think about it.

>
> * §2.3 (Semantics), 1st par: "to answer queries about, e.g., class  
> consistency, subsumption and instance retrieval." Somethings wrong  
> with this sentence, I think: one doesn't answer queries /about/  
> instance retrieval?

Restructured.

>
> * §2.3 (Semantics), 3rd par:
> ** 1st sentence: The citation mark "[OWL 2 RDF-Based Semantics]"  
> should be placed directly behind "RDF-Based Semantics".

OK

> ** 1st sentence: The citation mark should be replaced by "[RDF  
> Semantics]".
> ** 1st sentence: "compatible with _the_ RDF Semantics" (missing  
> "the").
> ** end of par: That citation mark there can be dropped, since there  
> is already one at the beginning of the par.

OK to all.

>
> * §2.3 (Semantics), 4th par: "The correspondence theorem in Section  
> 7.3 of the RDF-Based Semantics Document". It's Section 7.2 now:
> <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/RDF- 
> Based_Semantics#Correspondence_Theorem>

OK

>
> * §2.4 (Profiles). For OWL 2 QL, nothing is said about its  
> computational complexity, while there are such assertions for the  
> other two profiles ("polinomial time ..."). Do we want to say  
> something for QL, either?

Possible -- we could say "... enables conjunctive queries to be  
answered in LogSpace (AC^0) using standard relational database  
technology". Given the sensitivity surrounding descriptions of  
profiles I didn't add it at the moment.

>
> * §4 (Roadmap), 2nd par: "and two alternative concrete syntaxes  
> (XML and Manchester)." Should be "OWL/XML" instead of "XML".

OK

>
> * §4, table: The Direct Semantics is characterized by "defines the  
> meaning of OWL 2 ontologies in terms of a model-theoretic  
> semantics." This is exactly true for the RDF-Based Semantics,  
> either. The latter is more specifically characterized by "an  
> extension of the RDF Semantics". For the Direct Semantics, I  
> suggest to say something like "compatible with the SROIQ  
> description logic", because Section 2.3 already characterizes the  
> Direct Semantics in just this way.

If anything, I would prefer to say something like "a standard first  
order model-theoretic semantics. But I fear that this might be  
offensive to some. No names, no pack drill.

Ian


>
> --
> Dipl.-Inform. Michael Schneider
> Research Scientist, Dept. Information Process Engineering (IPE)
> Tel  : +49-721-9654-726
> Fax  : +49-721-9654-727
> Email: michael.schneider@fzi.de
> WWW  : http://www.fzi.de/michael.schneider
> ====================================================================== 
> =
> FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik an der Universität Karlsruhe
> Haid-und-Neu-Str. 10-14, D-76131 Karlsruhe
> Tel.: +49-721-9654-0, Fax: +49-721-9654-959
> Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts, Az 14-0563.1, RP Karlsruhe
> Vorstand: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Rüdiger Dillmann, Dipl. Wi.-Ing. Michael  
> Flor,
> Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Wolffried Stucky, Prof. Dr. Rudi Studer
> Vorsitzender des Kuratoriums: Ministerialdirigent Günther Leßnerkraus
> ====================================================================== 
> =
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 15 April 2009 11:12:58 UTC