Re: Comments on NF&R

2009/2/9 Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>

> On 9 Feb 2009, at 20:19, Christine Golbreich wrote:
>
> I have completed my action to create a Wiki page for NF&R comments [1],
>> mixed or not with LC comments.
>> Currently I have addressed all changes asked on NF&R by external comments.
>> Still pending UC#3 (internal) and 4-6-10 (waiting to align on LC responses).
>>
>> BTW JH1 query for more documentation on hasKey feature is already done in
>> NF&R.
>>
>
> Not to sound like a broken record, but if:
>        http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/New_Features_and_Rationale#F9:_Key
> is the text, it still fails to address the specifics of Jim's comment.
>
> It also doesn't address the rationale for non-functionality.
>
> I note that it's quite a mess too, with repetition and a lot of emphasis on
> stating *what* the features are rather than explaining *why* they are


>
> It needs a major rewrite and from someone who understands the rationale.


? !!


> I volunteer, but not right now. It's hardly pressing as this document is
> not in LC.
>
> I still have many concerns with the document duplicating text from other
> documents (e.g., the grammar productions). It would be nice if we would
> discuss it at some point. I'm happy for there to be an issue.



 1) The point raised by Jim was "why the last axiom wasn't entailed by the
HasKey" in the example. This  question is about the feature itself not about
"why" this feature. He explicitely asked for more documentation to prevent
other users to be surprised by non intended inferences due to the
sepcificities of hasKey. Therefore, I updated the NF&R section regarding key
accordingly. We had agreed at the following TC that we will add more
documentation on HasKey in the different documents and send it in the
reply.

2) It was agreed by the WG that the New Features and Rationale will provide
two aspects for each feature: the "what" in subsection 'Feature' (an
understandable description of the feature) and the "why" in subsections
"theoritical perspective" and "implementation perspective". I repetitively
asked for contributions on the latter before the FPWD. Boris and others have
volunteered (but not you). Finally, after having complemented these
subsections (thanks), they said and it was agreed that it was fine like it.

3) Thanks for the "mess"!  (note that you added repetitions with earlier
text in the Syntax as well. I did not mention it to move forward.)

Hopefully other comments from external people, users but not only, show that
they do appreciate documents writen to be read by 'humans', and that
the overview (of "what") provided by NF&R is required to help the approach
of 'nicer' documents.

As far as I can see there has been many LC comments on the features
themselves but none asked  for a better explanation of the "why". Looks like
it's your single view. Until now, you are the only one having concerns with
the NF&R.

You still have the opportunity to provide a more extended explanation of the
"why" in the Primer as well. BTW I'm still looking for  the revision of the
Primer which has been delayed several times.  If I remember correctely, an
updated version was expected early January to be reviewed.

Regards
-- 
Christine