Review of the QCR draft

Exec summary:

I think the draft could be published as a note if comments below are 
addressed, only I'm worried about the lack of a formal semantics of the 
owl extentions proposed.

Jacco

Review of the QCR draft
Qualified cardinality restrictions (QCRs):  Constraining the number of 
values of a particular type for a property
W3C Editor's Draft 02 November 2005
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Nov/att-0022/QCRs-revised-01.html


General remarks
===============
Draft is very clear until pattern 3
- "The syntax looks like this [3]."  This left me confused.  Does the 
reader really need to go to [3] to look up what the syntax looks like?
  Please remove this sentence if not important or give examples of the 
proposed syntax inline.
- The mechanism in the ordered list items 1,2, 3 is explained on the RDF 
triple level, but the example syntax is given in the abstract syntax,
  which makes this unnecessary complex.  I suggest to first explain 
everthing in terms of the abstract syntax, and than discuss what this
  means on the RDF triple level, including all triples involved in the 
example in turtle or n3 notation, higlighting the "extra" ones.
- "where has_level and has_trend are functional properties but 
has_feature is not functional.
  Why? Is this relevant for the QCR?  Should these properties be 
declared functional in the example?

Discussion section:
- "The intended semantics fully capture the intent of the use cases given."
  Sure.  But what about the acual semantics?  Is there a formal 
semantics for this extention? Please refer to this!
- "Simple cardinalty restrictions can be taken as a special case of 
Qualified Cardinality Restrictions where qualifying argument is 
valuesFrom(owl:Thing)."
  So what?  Please explain, give an example, state if this is good or 
bad, or only interesting from an academic point of view.  Or remove?

Low level stuff
===============
HTML code does not validate and has lots of   onweird places that 
make the formatting look odd.

<title>:
- replace title (Cut & paste error from the part/whole draft)

Copyright:
- 2004 or 2005?

Status:
"This document will be a part of a larger document that will provide an 
introduction and overview of all ontology design patterns produced by 
the Semantic Web Best Practices and Deployment Working Group."
- Be more specific and link to this document if it exists.  I suggest to 
remove this remark if doc does not exist.

Basics:
- s/valujes/values

Use cases:
Rector [1]
- Make reference into a hyperlink, also for all other [1], [2], [3] refs 
in document

use case 2
- s/opne/one

use case 6
- s/undertainty/uncertainty
- s/lline/line

Representation Pattern 1: Use owl:someValuesFrom:
-s/generalisations of 3/generalisations of use case 3

Representation Pattern 2: 'Work around" using subPropertyOf
- make quotes in 'Work around" heading consistent (remove switching 
between " and ' in entire document)
- s/hve/have
-

Representation Pattern 3: Use a non-endorsed OWL extension
- first line: s/QCR/QCRs
- s/suggestd/suggested
- s/incoporatd/incorporated
- "OWL users who require QCRs for use cases not well served by the work 
around in Representation 2 may want to use this extension"
  Rephrase or add commas?
- "At least one widely used tool already supports QCRs as do many of the 
widely used classifiers."
  Add comma after QCRs
- "To this a qualified cardinality constraint need only add a third triple"
  Syntax looks odd for a non native speaker like me (only needs to add a 
third triple?)
  Similar phrasings in the rest of this para.
- "For example the exampole"
  Fix typo and rephrase using "example" only once.
- "but each Feature could"
  lower caps F

Discussion:
- replace [Note 4] by link to Note [1]

Received on Saturday, 5 November 2005 19:48:39 UTC