- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 18:18:29 +0100
- To: Christine Golbreich <cgolbrei@gmail.com>
- CC: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <49B6A0E5.7070006@w3.org>
Christine Golbreich wrote: > Below some comments on the Roadmap section of the Document Overview > > 1. Put the Roadmap at top, as the first section of the Document Overview > I do not think I agree with this. The 'logical' reading of this document is to get some sort of a very high level picture of OWL in general, before diving into the details on how and what is documented and where (which is the roadmap). > 2. Roadmap > > a) Add some global text for users below the Roadmap picture , something > like > The OWL 2 Document Overview describes should be read before other OWL 2 > documents. > The reading order of the other documents depends on the audience. > Advanced readers who are interested in technical aspects, may read the > documents 2 to 5 that form the technical core of OWL 2 and 6 which > describes the Profiles. Readers familiar with OWL 1 who want an overview > of the main new features that have been added to OWL 2 and of their > rationale, may read document 9. Readers who look for a guide introducing > OWL 2 and explaining how to use it may read document 8. Ontology > developers who need a language synopsis may use document 10. Developers > interested in conformance test cases may refer to document 10, users > interested in Manchester syntax should go to document 12 (to be > completed for 11 -13) > AFAIK, we did discuss having such a text added to each document's introduction instead of putting the current table everywhere, but I am not sure we already have such a text drafted. But I presume the same text could be reused here. > b) The link XML Serialization is broken > > c) I'd rather link to the wiki documents to prevent misundertanding or > confusions at the announcement of its publication w.r.t. LC comments > > d) I suggest to remove all specific mentions at users documents like > "being revised /being completed" for the users documents, because they > may be shortly obsolete, and replace it by a single warning at top, > mentionning that all documents are under revision. > > e) For QRG I'd suggest to replace the sentence : "provides an overview > of the various OWL 2 features in general" by something closer to the QRG > abstract, e.g. like "provide a quick synopsis to the OWL 2 language". > > Given the schedule I don't know how to process. > I 'm available to make the changes on the wiki of those that don't raise > objection. > Sandro has offered to make the changes he proposed himself. I would prefer to let him do these, otherwise we get into some wiki-fight where everybody looses... Ivan > Christine > > > 2009/3/10 Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org <mailto:sandro@w3.org>> > > > 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. > > > > > -- > Christine -- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Tuesday, 10 March 2009 17:18:55 UTC