Re: Closing action-306: Comments on the QRG

Thanks very much for the comments Ivan.  I believe you agreed with the 
QRG updates in response to your valuable feedback.
Do you believe  that there are any issues remaining or should we 
consider the updates and responses to have satisfied your comments?

thanks,
Deborah

Ivan Herman wrote:
> For the records, these were my comments on the QRG document. In fact,
> these comments went to Jie before I took the action last week, and the
> current wiki page reflects most of the proposed changes already. But as
> there was a public action on me, it is better to have that on record, too.
>
> Ivan
>
> ---------------
>
>
> - The explanation for the [...] syntax for lists is in 1.6, although it
> is used right at the begining already. I wonder whether it is not better
> to move that section up where the notations are described. After all, as
> far as this document goes, this is a notation. (I am not even sure it is
> worth spelling it out in terms of triples, just make a reference to the
> appropriate RDF Semantics entry.)
>
> - The term 'self' is used in the fourth entry of table 1.1.2. Wouldn't
> 'local reflexivity' be a better term?
>
> - 'Restrictions Using Object Properties owl:Restriction' in 1.1.2 and
> 1.1.3 appears right before the tables. I am not sure why you have
> 'owl:Restriction' listed there there. I do not think it is necessary.
> Actually, the rest of the line is just the section heading which does
> not seem to add any new information. I would propose to leave only the
> second line there ("Every owl:Restriction is an owl:Class.")
>
> This is something that is repeated all along. There is a section
> heading, and then the same text as the section heading is repeated in
> bold referring to some owl vocabulary element. I do not see the value of
> these; just shorten things by removing them (I realize the PDF card may
> need that, but then this should be visible on the PDF only...)
>
> - I wonder about the treatment of n-ary datatypes in 1.1.3. We have them
> _syntactically_ as 'hooks' in the spec, but they are not part of the
> core spec. I wonder whether the corresponding two lines (n-ary universal
> and n-ary existential) should not be clearly separated from the rest
> with a clear statement warning the user that these are _not_ part of the
> core OWL 2 spec. Editorially, this also means (I guess) that the D^n
> reference from the intro paragraph in section 1 should be moved out to a
> separate place
>
> - 1.1.4 just for the sake of consistency: 1.5 includes an abbreviated
> format for SameIndividual when there are more than 2; I think the same
> format should be used for, eg, EquivalentClasses, or for similar
> constructions elsewhere
>
> - in 1.3.1. I would repeat the top/bottom property term in the third
> coloumn. The reader might be misled by the table to think that those
> terms are not available in RDF. It is redundant, I know, but, well...
>
> - 1.3.1. In my understanding the property chain (ie,
> ObjectPropertyChain) appears in a subproperty position only, ie, as it
> appear in the second row of 1.3.2. I guess this should be checked with
> Boris and Michael. If I am right (which is not sure...) it should
> probably be removed from 1.3.1. In any case, the owl term used is wrong,
> it should be owl: propertyChainAxiom.
>
> - 1.3.2. I wonder about the fourth coloumn of the table. I am not 100%
> sure we should have those there or, if we do, whether we should have it
> for all entries. Again, I am not sure, but there is a level of
> inconsistency there:-(
>
> By the way, strictly speaking in the RDF semantics, some of the
> statements are not 100% correct. Functional property means that
>
> i0 P i1. i0 P i2 => i1 owl:sameAs i2
>
> I know, I am nit picking, but, well... (the same is repeated all along
> that coloumn)
>
> - I am not 100% sure the first table in annotation (1.9) is correct
> although, I must admit, I am not sure how to put this whole annotation
> business in concise form:-(
>
> If I have Annotation(P v), and this appear within an axiom, ie something
> like
>
> SubclassOf( Annotation(P v) A B )
>
> this gets translated into the triples
>
> A rdfs:subClassOf B
> _:x rdf:type owl:Axiom
> _:x owl:subject A
> _:x owl:predicate rdfs:subClassOf
> _:x owl:object B
> _:x P v
>
> ie, the first triple in the table (y P v) does not seem to be correct...
>
> - 1.9.2, again I am not 100% sure about the annotation assertion. If I use
>
> AnnotationAssertion(p SomeURI v)
>
> this gets translated, simply, into
>
> SomeURI p v
>
> ie, no extra reification there...
>
> - Section 2: just a heads up: Boris is rewriting this part as we speak,
> so this may have to be updated at some point, too.
>
> - Section 4
>
> I wonder whether this should not be moved to the top of the page. These
> are the namespaces we use, better specify them upfront...
>
> Minor nit:
>
> - This is a matter of taste, of course. Personally, I find the gray
> background shading a little bit disturbing. I wonder what other
> typographic trick we should use to denote OWL 2 specific features, but
> something less disturbing would be nice. (Maybe some lighter colour, for
> example?) I also wonder whether we could find a trick (eg, by chaning
> the css values via a javascript?) so that I could choose _not_ to
> highlight the differences. It is of course great to have those clearly
> denoted for those who make a transition from OWL 1 but, after a while,
> these differences become without interest, and I might prefer not to
> have them highlighted at all. The same holds for the '?' links that
> refer to the NF&R; once people are hooked on OWL 2, those issues become
> moot, and the really important reference will be the primer (in my
> view...) and not that one...
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 17 March 2009 16:22:56 UTC