Re: Review of Primer

On Dienstag, 19. Mai 2009, Michel_Dumontier wrote:
> Hi Sebastian/Pascal,

Hi Michel,

thanks for all you comments ...

<snip>

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

At the moment, tool support for the current (more optimistically: final ;) 
syntax of OWL 2 is not truly available yet. Our intention is to formally check 
the examples as soon as the situation improves (presumably during CR).

I already did low-level syntactic checks where possible, using RDF, XML and 
Turtle validators, and this revealed a number of typos that are fixed already. 
So I think for now we can (and must) risk to have one or the other remaining 
typo in there as long as the general structure and rationale of the examples 
is okay.

Markus

>
>
>
> -=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=235
>45
>
>
>
> Diff for Section 10:
> <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Primer&diff=23695&oldid=23
>689>
>
>
>
> 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=23
>689>
>
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________
>
> 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


-- 
Markus Krötzsch
Institut AIFB, Universität Karlsruhe (TH), 76128 Karlsruhe
phone +49 (0)721 608 7362          fax +49 (0)721 608 5998
mak@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de          www  http://korrekt.org