- From: Deborah L. McGuinness <dlm@ksl.stanford.edu>
- Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 10:07:59 -0400
- To: Sebastian Rudolph <rudolph@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de>
- CC: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>, dlm@cs.rpi.edu
Sebastian Rudolph wrote: > 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. i think this one is important to put in since although this was exactly what i disagreed strongly with in the initial f2f at manchester (and still would strongly have preferred that we took the route I was suggesting), the owl 2 primer now does replace section 3 of the owl 1 overview along with the OWL 1 guide. although i gave up fighting the battle to have a separate shorter document with the simpler examples provided in the owl overview and then the longer guide as a separate document, i think now it should be acknowledged that the primer replaced those. it is the appropriate place to mention it where we mention the owl 1 differences but the mention just to the nf&r is not adequate since that is only mentioning the differences between the language features and not telling people about the document replacement strategy. deborah >> >> 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 14:08:29 UTC