Re: review of document-overview

Hi Sandro,

Maybe I make life a little too easy on myself, but here's a +1 to all  
of your points (though perhaps owl2-structure instead of owl2- 
structures).

-Rinke

-----------------------------------------------
Drs. Rinke Hoekstra

Email: hoekstra@uva.nl    Skype:  rinkehoekstra
Phone: +31-20-5253497
Web:   http://www.leibnizcenter.org/users/rinke
Visit: Kloveniersburgwal 48,       room ET1.09c

Leibniz Center for Law,          Faculty of Law
University of Amsterdam,            PO Box 1030
1000 BA  Amsterdam,             The Netherlands
-----------------------------------------------

On 10 mrt 2009, at 05:13, Sandro Hawke wrote:

>
> I don't think we assigned reviewers, and I we're scheduled to make a
> publication decision in about 36 hours; so I did a review, and here it
> is.
>
> With editorship of this document a little vague, and Ian unavailable
> this week, I'm not quite sure how to proceed.  Here's my suggestion:  
> if
> you agree with one of my comments, reply with a "+1" to it.  If you
> don't, reply with a "-1" and/or explanation.  Any of my proposed  
> changes
> which get at least one +1 and no -1's, I'll try to implement.  (My
> timeline for this will depend on when/how folks reply.)  (In some  
> cases,
> I make disjunctive proposals, and you should clarify which option  
> you're
> approving or objecting to.)
>
> My review is on this version:
> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Document_Overview?oldid=18827
>
> A few of these (like what documents to link to, and fixing the  
> abstract)
> are show-stoppers; IMO they really have to be addressed before
> publication.   I'd like to see them all addressed.
>
>        -- Sandro
>
> ================================================================
>
> Document Overview
>
> * The abstract needs to be handled as a special case; right now the
>  first paragraph gets weird, talking about itself in the third
>  person.
>
> * I think the title should be
>
>     OWL 2 Web Ontology Language
>     Part 1: Document Overview
>
> SECTION 1
>
> * "Ontologies are formalised" -> "Ontologies are formalized"
>
>  "W3C uses U.S. English (e.g., "standardise" should read
>  "standardize" and "behaviour" should read "behavior")."  --
>  http://www.w3.org/2001/06/manual/#Spelling
>
> * OWL 1 was developed by the Web Ontology WG, not the OWL WG.
>
> SECTION 2 (Overview)
>
> * "At the top are various concrete syntaxes that can be used to"
>                                           ^ discussed in section 2.2
>
> * "At the bottom are the two semantic specifications"
>                                                    ^ discussion in
>                                                    seciton 2.3
>
>   (without these forward references, the diagram is unexpectedly
>   baffling, I think)
>
> * I'd make the diagram bigger -- maybe 700px across instead of 600,
>  but maybe that's just me.     Also a little color might be nice.
>  Ivan, will the source work in InkScape?
>
> SECTION 2.1 Ontologies
>
> * (here and elsewhere) "OWL 2 Specification" is a really bad reference
>  name for Structural Specification and Functional-Style Syntax.  I
>  don't know what we should call it, but calling part 2 of the OWL 2
>  specification "specification" is ... not okay.  (Yes, I know we've
>  done this in our other publication so far; I didn't want to make a
>  stink then because we'd argued too much about naming, but now looking
>  at it again from the perspective of someone coming fresh to our
>  documents, ...  "No!")
>
>  There's an argument that we should always refer to other parts of the
>  OWL 2 spec using the approved shortname, in which case this reference
>  would be "owl2-syntax", but ... that's a pretty confusing name, too,
>  especially in a sentence explaining how it's not about syntax.
>
>  I think my favorite would be "OWL2 Structures".  Maybe we should
>  change the shortname from owl2-syntax to owl2-structures, too.
>
> SECTION 2.2 Syntax
>
> * "serialisation" (UK spelling)
>
> * Maybe do a table of the syntaxes and their properties?
>  (Name, Specified In, Required?, Description)
>
> SECTION 2.3 Semantics
>
> * "OWL 2 Ontologies that are interpreted using the RDF-Based Semantics
>  are called 'OWL 2 Full' ontologies. " and the last paragraph
>  paragraph...
>
>  I think OWL Full is/should be the name of a syntactic subset --
>  specifically the trivial subset that is the full language.  The
>  choice of semantics is orthogonal.
>
> * On the editor's note -- we don't need to characterize it here; it's
>  too technical for this.
>
> * So, the last paragraph needs lots of work, since it conflates
>  syntactic subset (OWL DL) with choice of semantics (Direct
>  Semantics).
>
> * I think it would help to have a table like this, to help make the
>  point about the tradeoffs between the semantics, and their
>  relationship with syntactic subsets...
>      http://www.w3.org/People/Sandro/owl2-matrix
>  but it still needs some work, and maybe can never be accurate
>  enough to be more helpful than harmful.
>
> SECTION 3: Profiles
>
> * I'd prefer this numbered as 2.4.  I think it's more at the same  
> level
>  as 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 and 2/4/5.  ACTUALLY, I think I'd put this  
> BEFORE
>  Semantics, so we can do the table of Profiles-vs-Semantics.  The
>  profiles can be done without talking about the two semantics.
>
> * I'd like to include a Venn Diagram, perhaps a version of
>  http://www.w3.org/People/Sandro/owl2-profiles-doc
>  without the roll-overs, and in black-and-white (or make the other
>  diagram be in color).
>
> * I'd like to make it more clear that the profiles are syntactic
>  subsets -- and that there may be benefits for sticking within those
>  subsets -- and nothing magical than that.
>
> * In particular, DL is a syntactic subset of OWL 2, even though it's
>  not described in Profiles.   That should be shown in this section.
>
> SECTION 4: Differences between OWL 2 and the previous version of OWL
>
> * Very clunky title...  How about "What's New In OWL 2"?  (it even
>  rhymes)
>
> * Maybe subsections, "What's the Same" and "What's New", which seems  
> to
>  be the text here, if divided into groups the same size as the
>  subsections in 2.
>
> * The references here (and in some other places) are not preceeded by
>  a space, giving us stuff like "Syntax[OWL 1", which seems
>  typographically wrong to me...
>
> * The XML syntax for OWL 1 seems oddly described, and the link seems
>  wrong.
>
> * Obviously the editor's note "Editor's Note: Is this correct? Or are
>  there corner cases to be mentioned?"  needs to be cleaned up before
>  publication!  I don't know, either.  If it were left to me, I'd have
>  to leave it in phrased as "still under investigation" or something.
>
> * "OWL 1 had only one profile" ...  I think of DL and Full as a
>  profiles.
>
> * In what sense was OWL Lite "not retained"?  You can still use it.
>  Maybe better to say to say no new specification for it has been
>  provided in OWL2, but it is still usable as a subset of OWL2.
>
> * Last paragraph (about punning) should probably have a link to more
>  details, since it's a deeply confusing concept.
>
> SECTION 5 Documentation Roadmap
>
> * Let's just call it "Document" Roadmap (not "Documentation") unless
>  we're calling this the "Documentation Overview" (which isn't what we
>  decided.)
>
> * Ummmm.  What versions are we linking to here, for this release of
>  Doc-Overview?  The Wiki?  The 2008-12-02 versions?  What about
>  Profiles, which is seriously out of date in all versions, and DRE
>  which hasn't yet been published?  I GUESS we link to the last TR,
>  except in the case of DRE, in which case we say it's to be published
>  soon, and for Profiles include text in the roadmap about it being out
>  of date.
>
> * There's been some talk of changing the order.  The obvious things  
> are
>  to put the non-core specs togther, before or after the user docs.  I
>  happen to like it as it is, since I think "Profiles" is more core  
> than
>  the other non-core specs, but I wouldn't object to a change.  We
>  should probably have a WG resolution on this; I expect RPI and
>  Manchester to have strong conflicting views on this.
>
> SECTION 6 References
>
> * I think these should be organized, somehow; right now I guess they
>  are in the order the references are made?   It ends up looking
>  pretty random.
>
>  How about alphabetic within groups, where the
>  groups are something like:
>      OWL 1
>      OWL 2
>      Other   (maybe divided into W3C and Non-W3C)
>
> * Same question as in Roadmap about which versions we refer to here.
>
> SECTION 7 Notes
>
> * I don't really think an overview like this should have footnotes.
>  They don't seem overview-y.
>
> * For Note 1 (from 2.2), this seems too detailed and novel for the
>  overview.  And it kind of seems to undermine conformance -- is
>  RDF/XML required or not?  Let's just drop this note, and address
>  this somewhere else if necessary.
>
> * For Note 2 (from 2.3), this could be inlined in 2.3, or dropped.
>
> * For Note 3 (from Profiles), that could go into parentheses.

Received on Tuesday, 10 March 2009 07:34:15 UTC