- From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 11:11:29 +0100
- To: Christine Golbreich <cgolbrei@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On 23 Apr 2009, at 09:03, Christine Golbreich wrote: > A first quick comment about links. > > - NF&R says what a new feature is and not only why a new feature has > been added. If it turns out that NF&R has unvoluntary been too much > cut and gives a wrong impression, it's urgent to say it. I will revert > and reintroduce some content of previous version. Please do not do that without discussion -- the vote to publish the document as a WD was made on the basis of the current version. > > - QRG links > to simplify, there are 3 profiles of QRG readers : (1) newbies, (2) > OWL 1 familiar users, (3) advanced > > Links useful for > (1): to Primer + NF&R for new features > (2): to NF&R > (3): no "instructional" (Primer or NF&R) but only "technical" > documents i.e. normative specs (syntax and semantics). > > I suggest to keep all links to NF&R and Primer. Otherwise if you > consider that they are "not very useful", remove both links to NF&R > and Primer. I agree with Peter that the extra "links" column is a waste of space and that there are far too many links anyway. IMHO, links to RDF- mapping are clearly inappropriate and *must* be removed; links to NF&R are clearly superfluous (given the purpose of this document) and *should* be removed; links to Primer may be confusing and/or of limited utility and *could* be removed. On the whole, I favour removing as many links as possible. Ian > > 2009/4/23 Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>: >> >> Quick Review of QRG >> >> I reviewed the version of 22 April 2009. This version has the link >> column up to about Section 2.2.1. >> >> General comments: >> >> - Satisfying the following comments will require quite large >> changes to >> the document. A re-review will be needed. >> >> - Moving the links to a separate column is a bad idea. It consumes >> extra space to no good effect. Links in the QRG should be from the >> relevant information itself, as they used to be. >> >> - Links to NF&R are not very useful in the QRG. Users of this >> document >> will not be interested in why a new feature had been added to OWL 2. >> Instead they will be interested in what the feature is (and thus the >> old links from the FS column are useful) and in how to use the >> feature >> (and thus the links to the Primer are useful). I suggest that all >> links to NF&R be removed. >> >> - Links to the RDF Mapping do not provide any useful information and >> should also be used. This document itself provides the information >> needed about the mapping, and in a form much more likely to be >> comprehensible by the readers of this document. >> >> - The document is missing named classes, properties, and individuals. >> Lines like the following should be added: >> Named class U U >> In some places names are required but the document does not >> distinguish between names and expressions. The places that I >> noticed >> where names are required are 2.6 Declarations and 2.7 Annotations. >> >> - This document should use terminology from the normative OWL 2 >> documents. This requires at least some changes to the following >> terminology: >> OWL class -> class expression >> object property -> object property expression >> I second Christine's comment to use the same short forms as in >> SS&FS, >> in general, but it may be that C is better than CE, if only to save >> space. >> >> I suggest the following start of a fix for the notation paragraph: >> >> We use the following notation conventions: "C" is a class >> expression, "D" is a data range, "P" is an object property >> expression, "R" is a data property, "A" is an annotation property, >> "a" is an OWL individual, "v" is a literal, and "n" is a >> non-negative integer. All of the previous can have subscripts. >> "_:x" is a blank node. "(a1 ... an)" is an RDF list. >> >> Then use subscripts where Q, S, and v were used before. >> >> - There are some awkward sentences in the document. I haven't >> changed >> them, but a final pass should be made after the content is fixed. >> >> - Subsections should be used sparingly. I suggest no sub-sub- >> sections >> (2.1.1, etc.) at all. >> >> - This document does not really need to address n-ary data ranges. I >> suggest removing all mention of n-ary data ranges and their support. >> >> - In some places the document uses explicit iteration (n-ary >> individual >> equality) and in some places it uses implicit iteration (equivalent >> properties). Only one should be used. I suggest implicit. >> >> - The document is missing some constructs. I noticed: >> - prefixes >> - datatype definitions >> - names, literals >> - individuals - named and anonymous >> >> - It would probably be better to merge all the datatype and data >> range >> stuff into one section. The built-in datatypes could be more >> succinctly presented by just listing the xsd datatypes. >> >> Specific comments: >> >> - The abstract needs to be completely rewritten, to be something >> like: >> >> This document provides a quick reference guide to the OWL 2 >> language. >> >> - Section 1 should be renamed to "Prefixes" and the first sentence >> changed to "The standard prefixes in OWL 2 are:" to conform with the >> wording in the normative OWL 2 documents. >> >> - "_:x" is a blank node. All of these can have subscripts. >> >> - The link for RDF lists should probably point to Turtle or some >> other >> place that uses this syntax for RDF lists. >> >> - "all OWL individuals" -> "universal class" (maybe) >> >> - The "Every owl:Restriction is an owl:Class." sentence is not >> needed at >> all. >> >> - The presentation of cardinalities should be made easier to >> understand. >> I suggest something like >> >> | | _:x rdf:type >> owl:Restriction. >> | ObjectExactCardinalty(n P) | _:x >> owl:onProperty P. >> | | _:x >> owl:cardinality n. >> exact cardinality | >> -----------------------------|------------------------ >> | | _:x rdf:type >> owl:Restriction. >> | ObjectExactCardinalty(n P C) | _:x >> owl:onProperty P. >> | | _:x >> owl:qualifiedCardinality n. >> | | _:x >> owl:onClass C. >> >> - "<x> Properties are instances of owl:<x>Property" should be >> changed to >> just "<x> Property Expressions". The last bit is not part of the >> FS, >> and in any case doesn't add any information. >> >> - "universal <x> property" and "empty <x> property" >> >> - The range of a datatype property axiom is a data range, not a >> class. >> >> - Data range intersection and union are switched up in the table. >> >> - positive object property assertion needs to indicate that P is an >> object property, not an object property expression. >> >> - A and AP are both used for annotation properties. Only one >> should be. >> >> - The section on Annotations needs work. Object annotations are on >> names only, for example. The full fixing up of this section >> should be >> done after some of the above changes are made. >> >> - The FS for deprecation doesn't need the short form - just write >> out. >> Deprecation can be used for individuals as well. >> >> - The section on ontologies should not say "Annotations of >> Ontologies". >> >> - This is a quick reference guide and does not need to mention all >> the >> arcana. Therefore the section on deprecation should be deprecated. >> >> Tyops: >> >> - I fixed a few typos. If the document is reverted these may need >> to be >> fixed: >> Abstract: his -> This >> 2: an rdf list. >> 2.1: _:x owl:hasValue a. >> an n-ary data range >> 2.2.1: bottom object property >> 2.5: a rdf:type C >> >> > > > > -- > Christine >
Received on Thursday, 23 April 2009 10:12:20 UTC