RE: Review of Primer

Hi Sebastian/Pascal,

  I still think that the HappyPerson example is still not ideal because of the cyclic definition. It's easier to understand if you just say that 

 

EquivalentClasses(

 :HappyPerson

 ObjectAllValuesFrom( :hasChild :Person)

)

 

While I understand that you want to make the point that we can express cycles, it adds a layer of complexity that is unnecessary and its utility in this example is not particularly convincing.

 

Grammar:

"If we happen to know the exact number of John's parent children, this can be specified as follows:"

è If we happen to know the exact number of John's children that are parents, this can be specified as follows:

 

 

I can't validate either the RDF/XML or Functional Syntax of the supplied ontology - what tools I can I use to do this?

 

-=Michel=-

 

 

From: Sebastian Rudolph [mailto:rudolph@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de] 
Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2009 12:41 PM
To: Michel_Dumontier
Cc: W3C OWL Working Group
Subject: Re: Review of Primer

 

 

Dear Michel,

 

thanks a lot for your review. We have thoroughly considered all your comments and tried to address them.

Please bear with us for not having implemented all your replacement text suggestions word by word, however we tried to detect your concerns behind those suggestions and to adress them apropriately. 

 

Diff of Sections 1-8 addressing your suggestions:

http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Primer&diff=23574&oldid=23545

 

Diff for Section 10: <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Primer&diff=23695&oldid=23689>

 

With best regards,

 Sebastian

 

Find some specific comments below.

	
	Review of the OWL 2 Primer (WD 21/04/09)
	---------------------------------------
	1.
	* "the buttons below can be used to show or hide all four syntaxes" ->
	five syntaxes
	* the syntax buttons aren't immediately linked to syntax examples, so a
	user wouldn't understand the differences between them and wouldn't
	choose between any of them at this point. On first exposure (4 -
	classes, instances), unclear which syntax each box refers to, but the
	user would have to scroll up to hide the syntax, go check which was
	changed, etc.

Meanwhile, the boxes have been endowed with labels indicating the syntax. 

 

	
	
	*** the Happy example is really obfuscated -> we should stay with named
	classes and build on previous defs

Yes, it may be confusing to have a complex class description on the left hand side, so we adapted the example. However, in OWL, "circular" statements (or in DL-parlance: cyclic Tboxes) are allowed and extend the modelling capabilities. In our example, we wanted to provide an example for this (hence describing "HappyPerson" using  "HappyPerson"). Thus we deliberately deviated from building on previous defs.

 

Section 10:

	* Remove most of the current text - it's really not accessible because

	it introduces huge amounts of new and unexplained terminology that is

	unrelated to what precedes it


We have done this.




* I think there would be more value in treating OWL 2 DL, Full, EL, RL

	and QL all as profiles of the OWL language. 


We actually had considered this when we started working on the primer but decided against it. We think the exhibition is much more concise as it is now, and fits the OWL 2 document set (where OWL 2 DL is not explicitly introduced as a profile).




* A table that compares the profile features, and the additional

	interpretation for FULL


To be entirely honest, I (Pascal) would very much like to come up with a readable table which presents the differences in a nice and accessible way. But the more I think about it, the less I like it. The profiles are simply too orthogonal. I'd be very happy about a concrete suggestion what such a table would look like - and if it is satisfactory, I'd be very happy to incorporate this.




* Use one example to illustrate the support for/differences between the

	profiles with an axiom annotation - and make the idea of profiles more

	accessible. Either start with a weaker profile and successively add more

	constructs, or summarizes the support in one example.


This is a nice idea but since the profiles EL, QL, RL are not layered, I think this way of presenting it is more confusing than helpful. It would either turn out to be mainly a merge of three disjoint sets of axioms, or it would be an example which is unneccessarily blown up (by forcing axioms into the example which lie in two or all three of the profiles). The exhibition seems to be much clearer as it is - and it also brings the point accross that the profiles should be thought of as orthogonal to each other.




* comparisons with RDFS precedes its  description 


I do not quite understand this comment?


Diff for Section 10: <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Primer&diff=23695&oldid=23689>

 

 

_________________________________________________

Dr. Sebastian Rudolph

Institute AIFB, University of Karlsruhe, D-76128 Karlsruhe

rudolph@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de    phone +49 (0)721 608 7362

www.sebastian-rudolph.de                 fax +49 (0)721 608 5998