Re: Review of the Syntax document (action 312)

On 29 Mar 2009, at 17:23, Boris Motik wrote:
[snip]
>> As far as I could see, the 'Declaration(' terminal symbol in the
>> language is not necessary. Ie, it would be perfectly o.k. to write  
>> simply
>>
>> Class(<URI>)
>>
>> instead of the more verbose
>>
>> Declaration(Class(<URI>))
>>
>> if I am right, I would propose to drop the 'Declaration(' part. It  
>> does
>> means some more editorial work in the syntax and the mapping  
>> document,
>> but it does not seem to be a huge one. Actually, it would also make  
>> it a
>> little bit closer to the RDF way of declaration, which is a plus.
>>
>> (I realise this change request comes a bit late in the game, so I  
>> will
>> not stick to it if the overall feeling is that it is not worth the  
>> trouble)
>
> This change could be made -- that is, the syntax would work. I agree  
> that the
> syntax would become much nicer.
>
> The only downside I can see is that the FSS would depart slightly  
> from the
> structural specification: in the SS, we have the Declaration class,  
> which
> currently nicely corresponds with the 'Declaration' terminal. (A  
> similar
> situation exists in the XML Syntax and is necessary there.) I think  
> I could live
> with this: it is just us recognizing that UML is different from a  
> linear syntax.

It makes it a bit more difficult to hang annotations on declarations.

Otherwise, it works for me.

[snip]
>> ------
>> 9.6.2. Individual inequality
>>
>> For a person coming from OWL 1 + RDF the example might suggest that  
>> the
>> old owl:differentFrom does not exist any more. Maybe an extra tiny
>> example that simply refers to two individuals instead of three  
>> might put
>> that person's mind at ease:-)
>>
>
> Oh, I don't know... This document makes no attempt to show all  
> variants of the
> RDF encoding. Furthermore, note that owl:AllDifferent version has  
> already been
> available in OWL 1 and is by no means new to OWL 2.

I agree. We already have a slew of examples. Piling more and more  
examples on is getting beyond.

We should be looking for places to trim, not places to add. Across the  
documents. Of the documents :)

*Backward* looking additions should be especially discourage. I think  
people were a little shell shocked by some of the LC comments. Let's  
be clear: We hope most people who read our documents are new to OWL  
(over the lifetime of these documents). Le'ts not optimize for a  
shrinking portion of our audience.

> I agree that this is messy. The problem, however, is that Mediawiki's
> typesetting of ordered lists is really appalling; furthermore, you  
> can't ask it
> to create the hierarchical numbered lists. I'm therefore now  
> referring to "the
> third subcondition of the third condition", as well as "the fourth  
> and the fifth
> subcondition of the third condition".

We could embedd proper HTML lists with <html></html>

>
>> - Example on the usage of an. individuals, explanation right after  
>> the
>> example and before the rolled up version: it should say _:a1  
>> instead of _:x.
>>
>
> Oops, thanks!
>
>
>

Received on Sunday, 29 March 2009 16:35:48 UTC