- From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 00:00:35 +0100
- To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
- Cc: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
Good advice. In fact we are still working on responding to editorial comments, trying to avoid any hint of snark, and even trying to make everyone happy -- which will of course never happen :-) Ian On 23 Sep 2009, at 21:56, Jim Hendler wrote: > 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 Thursday, 24 September 2009 23:01:06 UTC