- From: Ralph R. Swick <swick@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2004 08:40:14 -0400
- To: <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
At 11:09 AM 6/29/2004 -0400, David Wood wrote: >Firstly, I like this document. It is clear and useful. It definitely addresses a real need. Kudos to all involved. concur, with pleasure. The prose and diagrams will help people who are new to OWL. >However, it seems to me that an important real-world feature of deployed systems will be the existence of more than one ontology (or system of ontologies). This has been discussed previously, but I think it is more important now that we are seeing existing, deployed implementations. They will require mappings between ontologies in order to ensure interoperability and the ability to combine them. yes, but is this mapping question particularly associated with value partitions/lists of values or is it more general? I certainly encourage the OEP task force to consider writing about mapping patterns _also_, perhaps as a 4th draft to become part of this "larger document" mentioned by all 3 current OEP drafts. >Pattern 2 seems to exist primarily to ease implementation, a goal I strongly support! However, Pattern 2 only eases implementation if the underlying store has certain properties. I don't think we can presume (or should even suggest) technologies to use when implementing recommendations. However, we do want to ensure that recommendations may be readily implemented and Pattern 1 addresses this issue. I found the "Considerations" section of pattern 2 to be particularly informative. It explains why this pattern might not be the best choice even though it appears to be more intuitive to many. I think this pattern therefore has pedagogical value. >2. Typos and Other Nit Picks (David noted most of the typos I saw) >Section "Use Case examples": > - 'qualities body type' -> 'qualities of body type'? I marked this too while reading, but after continuing I understood what the style was meant to be and marked it 'STET' in my copy. However, as you commented also likely other readers will stumble here. Perhaps the text "body type: slender, medium, obtuse" might be put in a different style or the prose written as "having quality body type ... and as having quality health status ..." >Section "Pattern 1: Values as subclasses partitioning a quality": Please make the "[see note x]" references into (local) links. In the next-to-last N3 describing the class Person, etc. it would be easier to read if there were a line break in front of :John (i.e. separating the description of :Person and of :John). Also, :johns_health should be a :Good_health_value. Question about the variant 2, placing an existential restriction on the individual -- do we know that :Jim must have a :has_health_status relation, or only that _if_ he has one it must have a certain value? >Section "Considerations using Pattern 1": Code for this example: Note 2 is not explicitly identified; I guessed that part of the text in Acknowledgements was meant to be Note 2. Also, "... viewing /-this-//+these+/ files ..." -Ralph
Received on Thursday, 8 July 2004 08:40:56 UTC