Re: Responses to LC comments DA1 and SR1

Given the comments against parts of the response, I suggest the
following minimalist response


  The OWL WG was chartered to define OWL 2. Guidance on best practices
  appears to be somewhat outside the charter of the group.  Therefore
  the OWL WG will not be providing guidance in this area.


peter



From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Responses to LC comments DA1 and SR1
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 11:57:23 -0500

> On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 9:34 AM, Michael Schneider<schneid@fzi.de> wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> My 2 cents:
>>
>> * [SR1]:
>>
>> I agree that such kinds of guidelines are off-scope for us.
>>
>> However, I think that the following sentence does not fully
>> answer to the comment:
>>
>> [[
>> Further, the imports mechanism of OWL provides a means
>> for really pointing back to the document or documents
>> that provide the current defining characteristics of a term.
>> ]]
>>
>> The imports mechanism relates whole ontologies, not single
>> terms (classes and properties). Therefore, I suggest to
>> remove this sentence from the response.
> 
> In addition, although the reader use the definite article "the" for
> defining document, the documentation for isDefinedBy has no such
> restriction: http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_isdefinedby
> 
> Therefore I would rather omit that part too, or have the rdfs spec own
> that there might be more than one, rather than the WG.
> 
> Also, arguably, since we mention isDefinedBy in our specifications,
> it's not out of the question that someone might expect us to have an
> opinion about its use.
> 
> How about:
> 
> The working group notes that it is the RDF Schema that defines the
> property rdfs:isDefinedBy[1], as follows:
> 
> rdfs:isDefinedBy is an instance of rdf:Property that is used to
> indicate a resource defining the subject resource. This property may
> be used to indicate an RDF vocabulary in which a resource is
> described.
> A triple of the form: "S rdfs:isDefinedBy O" states that the resource
> O defines S. It may be possible to retrieve representations of O from
> the Web, but this is not required. When such representations may be
> retrieved, no constraints are placed on the format of those
> representations. rdfs:isDefinedBy is a subproperty of rdfs:seeAlso.
> 
> Giving guidance that modifies the existing specification is outside
> our charter. We note, however, that the current documentation does not
> imply that there be a single value for the property, that having the
> target of rdfs:isDefinedBy be both the OntologyIRI and the VersionIRI
> in separate statements does not therefore seem inconsistent with the
> documentation, and that because of this you might consider that the
> two options you present in your comment might not be exclusive of each
> other.
> 
> ---
> 
> We don't have to quote the definition from rdfs, but I don't see that it hurts.
> 
> -Alan
>

Received on Monday, 22 June 2009 17:07:40 UTC