Re: Primer Review

Dear Deborah,

Am 20.05.2009 um 12:28 schrieb Deborah L. McGuinness:

> thanks for the updates. i notice that
> 1 - the references list still needs to be updated to include all of  
> the documents referenced.
That's true, we will address this by tonight.

> 2 - my comment 5.1 got in but 5.2 did not and should.
Personally we are agnostic about having that in there, but just as a  
general question: is it good practice to hint to "old" OWL documents?  
If we got the OWL 2 WG spirit right, the documents are mostly intended  
to be stand-alone and not refer to former OWL 1 documents. I guess, if  
we were to say what current documents replace what earlier OWL 1  
documents this should perhaps be done uniformly in the Overview? Thus,  
we would like to refer the decision on that to tonight's telco.
>
> what is the plan for the issues with sections 9 and 10?
> 10 is linked to the issues with the profiles document as well.
Actually they have already been adressed as well (see the bottom of  
our response email, where you can also fnd the corresponding diffs).

With best regards
    Sebastian

>
>
> unfortunately i am not able to be on the telecon today but it would  
> be useful to have an email about the plan to address my comments on  
> section 9 and 10.
>
> thanks,
> deborah
>
> Sebastian Rudolph wrote:
>> Dear Deborah,
>>
>> many thanks for your thorough review and your helpful suggestions.
>> We implemented most of them as suggested. The diff
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Primer&diff=23739&oldid=23695 
>>  <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Primer&diff=23739&oldid=23695 
>> >
>>
>> should contain mainly the changes made in response to your comments  
>> for all sections except 9 and 10.
>> Please find some specific comments below inline.
>>
>> With best regards
>> Sebastian
>>
>>>
>>>       1. After we mention “most of the language features” add a
>>>          sentence saying for a listing of language features, see the
>>>          Quick Reference document which then provides links into the
>>>          appropriate sections of the appropriate documents  
>>> concerning
>>>          syntax and examples.
>> We added an according remark to Section 1.1, where we also refer to  
>> the NF&R document.
>>> 7. On “ … all four syntaxes “
>>>       1. Change to “… all five syntaxes”
>> Well, we consider the RDF-based syntax as one syntax having an RDF/ 
>> XML and a Turtle variant.
>>>
>>> 9. I find the following open to confusion “In particular, there is  
>>> no
>>>    way to enforce that a certain piece of information (like the
>>>    social security number of a person) has to be syntactically  
>>> present.”
>>>       1. One reading of that for me is that min cardinality
>>>          restrictions are not there. What I believe this is really
>>>          aiming at is the open world assumption so that just because
>>>          a ss# is not there now, does not mean it might not be there
>>>          later.
>> The point is that even a class membership "has some ss#" does not  
>> mean that the concrete ss# of that individual has to be recorded in  
>> the Ontology (as opposed to e.g. XML Schema). We just know that it  
>> has one. That's what we mean by "syntactically present."
>>>       2. This paragraph and the next one basically on what owl is  
>>> not
>>>          I think belong buried later – not so far near the beginning
>>>          where I think they have more potential to cause confusion
>>>          than to help.
>> Actually, these paragraphs were requested as kind of "setting the  
>> stage" before going into details.
>>>
>>> 13. On the paragraph starting with “One can use basic algebra….”
>>>       1. This feels out of place – it is a more sophisticated notion
>>>          than most of the rest of the writing and is only for a
>>>          subset of users. It should somehow be noted that most will
>>>          want to skip this. It could be a (granted long) footnote.
>> Agreed. We will find a way to make this look skippable; that's what  
>> the editor's note was made for.
>>>
>>> 14. On “Thereby we will represent information about a particular
>>>    family. (We do not intend this example to be representative of  
>>> the
>>>    sorts of domains OWL should be used for, or as a canonical  
>>> example
>>>    of good modeling with OWL, or a correct representation of the
>>>    rather complex, shifting, and culturally dependent domain of
>>>    families. Instead, we intend it to be a rather simple exhibition
>>>    of various features of OWL.)”
>>>       1. I do not think the parenthetical adds a lot but it does
>>>          detract. This is now the third place where it seemed that a
>>>          thought was more appropriate for a footnote if it was to be
>>>          kept.
>> We moved this comment to the parent section, hopefully decreasing  
>> the danger of detraction. We actually think this disclaimer should  
>> be in place in order to prevent that the sample ontology is  
>> conceived as a kind of "modeling best practice" (which it is not).
>>
>>>
>>> 25. In section 7, wow – 200 is a seriously large max for human  
>>> age. I
>>>    would drop it to at least 150.
>> Well, you never know what medical progress brings about, but so be  
>> it...
>>
>>>
>>> 27. On section 9, I agree with the comment by mike smith on may 13
>>>    that this section could use some rework. The intro sentence of 2
>>>    ways of thinking about owl 2 seems odd to me as well. I am  
>>> willing
>>>    to re-review when the updated 9 is in.
>>
>> Yes we have changed this in accordance with Mike's review.
>>
>> Diff for Section 9: <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Primer&diff=23689&oldid=23628 <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Primer&diff=23689&oldid=23628 
>> >>
>> (note that it also shows the removal of some comments which can be  
>> ignored)
>>
>>>
>>> 28. On section 10, I am not sure what goes in this section and what
>>>    goes in the owl profiles document. It seems like the main thing I
>>>    would want to get on profiles from this document is a sentence or
>>>    2 on each profile and why one chooses that profile and a small
>>>    example. The current version seems to have too much content and I
>>>    agree with mike that complexity class, links to literature, and
>>>    history do not belong in this document. I am also willing to
>>>    re-review when the update to 10 is in.
>>
>> We have taken out text on complexity classes, literature links, and  
>> history. The remaining text aids in the choice of profile and  
>> points out some of the language features. As for the examples, they  
>> are already quite short, consisting of 4-6 axioms each: With less,  
>> it's not possible to get a minimum of the expressivity accross.
>>
>> Diff for Section 10: <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Primer&diff=23695&oldid=23689 <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 <mailto:rudolph@aifb.uni- 
>> karlsruhe.de>    phone +49 (0)721 608 7362
>> www.sebastian-rudolph.de <http://www.sebastian- 
>> rudolph.de>                 fax +49 (0)721 608 5998
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

_________________________________________________
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

Received on Wednesday, 20 May 2009 11:01:03 UTC