- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 12:25:05 +0000
- To: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
My review is predicated on one condition: that the HTML layout ends up in 3 column, two page format. That was my understanding when we agreed to this document, and that continues to be my understanding. If that is going to be changed, we need a WG decision. I would like that the notational conventions be a bit more interactive. First: """We use the following notation conventions: unless stated otherwise, "C" is an OWL class, "D" is a data range, "P" and "Q" are object properties, "R" and "S" are data properties, "i" is an OWL individual, "u" and "v" are literals, "n" is a non-negative integer. All names may have subscripts. "[a1 … an]" stands for a list.""" doesn't mention "x", which I presume is a bnode. Perhaps "_" would be better? In any case, it needs definition. Second, it'd be nice if when I moused over "C" I got a tooltip saying "C is a class expression". Typo: s/if D presents/if D is present/ For the highlighting of new stuff, I'd prefer if the whole line were highlighted. Typo s/reificated form/reified form/ 2.9 should have some indication of when the reified form can/should be used. I think a little diagram or example would maybe work better for the global restricitons. Otherwise, I'd just make a pointer to the full account..I'm skeptical that people can follow it. Esp. as the conditions mix in property and non property ones. 4.1 needs to be updated (e.g., owl:realPlus must go) I think that the facets and the datatypes might be meaningfully combined. I think it's more important to show what the facets *are* rather than the syntax of the facets. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Monday, 23 March 2009 12:21:26 UTC