- From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 12:03:23 +0000
- To: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Cc: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Please go ahead and send it. Ian On 22 Mar 2009, at 09:02, Ivan Herman wrote: > +1 > > Ivan > > Boris Motik wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I have made some editorial changes to the Introduction in response >> to Jonathan's >> comments. I propose to respond to him by sending him the following >> e-mail. >> Please let me know whether this is OK with everyone. >> >> Regards, >> >> Boris >> >> ------------------------------------------------- >> >> Dear Jonathan, >> >> Thanks for your latest comments. We have made some changes to the >> introduction; >> the diff showing our changes is here: >> >> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php? >> title=Syntax&diff=20157&oldid=20006 >> >> Please let us know whether this addresses your concerns. >> >> Regards, >> Boris Motik >> on behalf of the W3C OWL Working Group >> >> ------------------------------------------------- >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: public-owl-comments-request@w3.org >> [mailto:public-owl-comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan >> Rees >> Sent: 20 March 2009 21:20 >> To: Boris Motik >> Cc: public-owl-comments@w3.org >> Subject: Re: [LC response] To Jonathan Rees >> >> >> On Mar 18, 2009, at 4:08 PM, Boris Motik wrote: >> >>> Dear Jonathan, >>> >>> Thank you for your comment >>> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/ >>> 2009Jan/0040.html >> >>> on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts. >>> >>> We indeed wanted to say that entities are one of the three syntactic >>> categories, >>> and not IRIs. To understand why this is so, consider, for >>> example, the >>> ObjectHasValue class expression defined in Section 8.2.3 and the >>> accompanying >>> UML diagram shown in Figure 8. The UML association "individual" of >>> the UML class >>> "ObjectHasValue" does not point to the UML class "IRI"; instead, it >>> points to >>> the UML class "Individual". As shown in Figure 2, the UML class >>> "Individual" is >>> a UML subclass of the UML class "Entity". Finally, note that the UML >>> class >>> "Entity" in Figure 2 has the UML association "entityIRI" to the UML >>> class "IRI". >>> Thus, the Syntax document defines OWL 2 ontologies as consisting of >>> "entities >>> identified by IRIs", rather than "IRIs that identify entities". This >>> view is >>> reflected in the document's introduction, as well as all the other >>> documents. >> >> I guess it didn't occur to me that OWL would use the words "class," >> "property," and "individual" at variance with the way they're >> ordinarily used in logic, mathematics, and ordinary language, not as >> related to the domain but merely as syntactic entities. Nor did it >> occur to me that "identifies" would be a relation between an IRI >> (syntactic) and an entity (syntactic), since most of the time is >> means >> what you call "represent", a relation between syntactic entities and >> domain elements. >> >> Now that I understand all this the document makes much more sense. >> >>> We agree with your comment about "can be thought of as primitive >>> terms", and >>> have changed the text slightly. >> >> The new text says: >> >> ''Entities'', such as classes, properties, and individuals, are >> identified by IRIs. They define the set of primitive ''terms'' of an >> ontology and can be used to represent the basic elements of the >> domain >> being described. >> >> This still needs wordsmithing. It says that entities define terms, >> which is nonsense. The entities (or the IRIs) *are* the terms. And >> "the basic elements of the domain" is nonsense - the domain doesn't >> inherently have "basic elements"; rather it is the ontology that >> selects or defines domain elements for "representation" by >> entities. A >> rewrite is needed here. >> >>> We have also replaced "formal conceptualization" with "formal >>> specification". We >>> would prefer not to use "conceptual model" because it contains the >>> word "model", >>> which seems to be susceptible to misinterpretation. >> >> The text you have is still not true, in my opinion: >> >> An OWL 2 ontology is a formal specification of a domain of >> interest. >> >> In what sense can an ontology specify a domain of interest? >> Ordinarily >> ontologies are descriptive or predictive, not prescriptive. The most >> accurate statement would be >> >> An OWL 2 ontology is a formal axiomatization of a domain of >> interest. >> >> but I can understand if you think this is too stuffy. One finds >> "formal model" in the literature (in the sense of formalism-as-model- >> of-reality), but that's dissonant with the use of "model" in model >> theory (which has the opposite sense). Elsewhere in this document you >> talk about "description", and this might work: >> >> An OWL 2 ontology is a formal description of a domain of >> interest. >> >>> The following URI can be used to inspect the changes introduced in >>> the Syntax >>> document in order to address your comments: >>> >>> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php? >>> title=Syntax&diff=19729&oldid=19723 >>> >>> Please acknowledge receipt of this email to <mailto:public-owl- >>> comments@w3.org >> >>> (replying to this email should suffice). In your acknowledgment >>> please let us >>> know whether or not you are satisfied with the working group's >>> response to your >>> comment. >> >> I think these editorial problems need to be fixed. >> >>> Regards, >>> Boris Motik >>> on behalf of the W3C OWL Working Group >>> >> >> >> >> > > -- > > 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 Monday, 23 March 2009 12:04:04 UTC