- From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
- Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 16:56:23 -0400
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
Based on my OWL (1) experience, I'd point out that we should keep in mind that any AC member can vote against for any reason, and even if that doesn't keep us from getting the Rec, it does make more work -- In addition, anything that improves the documents (at an editorial level) helps with the eventual acceptance of the spec -- so being polite and friendly to commenters remains very important (in fact, may be more important now). -JH p.s. or to put it more bluntly, now would be a really bad time to give a snarky answer to someone that gets them upset enough to complain to an AC member about something... On Sep 23, 2009, at 9:38 AM, Ivan Herman wrote: > Hi Michael, > > first of all, we have an obligation to respond to the commenter until > the Recommendations are published. Even if our answer is 'sorry, no'. > > The rule of thumb should be whether any change on the document would > be > substantial invalidating, for example, any implementation. Obviously, > such substantial changes should be politely rejected, essentially > saying > 'your time is up':-) (Except if there are really really clear bugs > revealed by the comments!) That boils down to accept only editorial > changes, in fact. > > Cheers > > Ivan > > > Michael Schneider wrote: >> Hi! >> >> How do we deal with these kinds of requests from now on? I would >> think that >> we will generally reject them as being too late. The only exception >> should >> be the correction of obvious bugs, such as typos, etc. >> >> Cheers, >> Michael >> >> From: public-owl-comments-request@w3.org >> [mailto:public-owl-comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Luigi Selmi >> Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 10:54 AM >> To: public-owl-comments@w3.org >> Subject: OWL Primer >> >> Hi All, >> as a reader of the primer and not as a master of OWL I woul suggest >> some >> minor changes in order to make the document more understandable: >> >> 1) paragraph 4.2 >> where is written :<Besides this, it is also reflexive, meaning that >> every >> class is its own subclass – this is intuitive as well since >> clearly, every >> person is a person etc.. > >> i would eliminate "this is intuitive as well since clearly, every >> person is >> a person etc" since it could be confusing rather than illustrative >> >> 2) paragraph 4.4 >> where is written: <names might be constructions with “of” or with >> “has” >> (wifeOf or hasWife). For verbs (like “to love”) an inflected form >> (loves) or >> a passive version with “by” (lovedBy) would prevent unintended >> readings. > >> property label constructed appending prepositions like in wifeOf or >> lovedBy >> is questionable. It doesn't avoid the possibility of a mistake. See >> for >> example the OWL/XML Syntax of the wife relationship between Bill >> and Mary. >> What about using Andrea instead of Bill. Who is the wife ?. A >> modeler that >> needs to state that two persons are in >> a "wife" relationship probably creates two disjoint classes, Man >> and Woman >> with the first class as the domain and the second its range so >> avoiding all >> possible confusion. >> See for example what TBL write about this issue here >> >> 3) paragraph 5.2 >> Maybe can be added the line <Natural language indicators for the >> usage of >> existential quantification are words like "one" or “some” > >> >> 6) paragrafo 6.1 >> where is written: <it is also possible to indicate that the inverse >> of a >> given property is functional > >> maybe it means "it is also possible to indicate that the inverse of >> a given >> functional property is functional too" >> >> Regards >> >> Luigi Selmi >> >> >> "It is easy to be certain. One only has to be sufficiently vague" - >> C.S. >> Peirce >> _______________________________ >> Luigi Selmi, MSc >> addr.: 12 P.zza Roselle 00179 Rome, Italy >> skype: luigiselmi >> ShareSemantics >> >> >> ________________________________________ >> Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync. Check it out! >> >> -- >> Dipl.-Inform. Michael Schneider >> Research Scientist, Dept. Information Process Engineering (IPE) >> Tel : +49-721-9654-726 >> Fax : +49-721-9654-727 >> Email: michael.schneider@fzi.de >> WWW : http://www.fzi.de/michael.schneider >> = >> = >> ===================================================================== >> FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik an der Universität Karlsruhe >> Haid-und-Neu-Str. 10-14, D-76131 Karlsruhe >> Tel.: +49-721-9654-0, Fax: +49-721-9654-959 >> Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts, Az 14-0563.1, RP Karlsruhe >> Vorstand: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Rüdiger Dillmann, Dipl. Wi.-Ing. Michael >> Flor, >> Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Wolffried Stucky, Prof. Dr. Rudi Studer >> Vorsitzender des Kuratoriums: Ministerialdirigent Günther Leßnerkraus >> = >> = >> ===================================================================== >> > > -- > > Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead > Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ > mobile: +31-641044153 > PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html > FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf > We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard - John F. Kennedy, Sept 12, 1962 Prof James Hendler http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~hendler Tetherless World Constellation Chair & Asst Dean of IT and Web Science Computer and Cognitive Science Depts Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY 12180 @jahendler, twitter
Received on Wednesday, 23 September 2009 20:57:13 UTC