Re: [SE] comments on primer

Jeremy,

Many thanks for your input. I guess we should wait for your complete review
of the updated version before preceeding with your comments? Can we assume
a couple of weeks for further review?

Best Regards,

Philip Tetlow
Senior Consultant (Certified Technical Architect)
IBM Business Consulting Services

Mail: IBM United Kingdom Limited, 1175 Century Way, Thorpe Park, Colton,
Leeds, LS15 8ZB
Current Assignment:
Mobile: +44 (0)7740 923328
Email: philip.tetlow@uk.ibm.com


                                                                           
             Jeremy Carroll                                                
             <jjc@hpl.hp.com>                                              
                                                                        To 
             11/01/2006 13:34          Phil Tetlow/UK/IBM@IBMGB, Holger    
                                       Knublauch <holger@knublauch.com>    
                                                                        cc 
                                       public-swbp-wg@w3.org               
                                                                   Subject 
                                       Re: [SE] comments on primer         
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           





hi

Summary: still minor fixes required on numbers 7 and 8.
I include suggested text for these two cases.

Also note that the text has changed significantly since my review, and I
have not reviewed the new text.

Looking at:
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/SE/ODSD/20051217/
and picking up thread form Nov 2005.


Phil Tetlow wrote:
> 1. Note that David Wood suggested moving para starting "The Semantic Web
> community has ..." forward so that it is clearer what the note offers.
>
> Agree (I think), but given that the abstract is now shorter and more
> focused on Sem Web languages, I personally think that the preamble in the
> introduction is acceptable.

OK, no further change on this one.

>
> 2. It is unclear whether the abstract is appropriate.
>
> Suggest the abstract is shortended to:
>
> Domain models play a central role throughout the software development
> cycle, from requirements analysis to design, through implementation and
> beyond. As such, great progress has been made in the consistent use of
> models throughout this process. Modern software development tools with
UML
> support and code generation as well as Model-Driven Architectures allow
for
> developers to synchronize and verify technical implementation with user
> requirements using models - the ultimate deliverable of computer code
still
> only being another form of model at the end of the day. However, there
are
> still challenges which can be addressed by Semantic Web languages such as
> RDF Schema and OWL, which have been optimized to build and reason with
> domain models. This note is hence intended to act as an introduction to
> Semantic Web technologies for software developers with background in
> object-oriented languages like UML and Java. Its aim is to clarify the
> differences between RDF/OWL and object-oriented languages, and to
encourage
> mainstream developers to add Semantic Web technology to their routine
tool
> kit.
>

Current abstract, which differs from above is OK

> 3. The reference [MvH 2004] should be [OWL] or similar.
>
> Agree...
>

Fixed

> 4. The reference [MM 2004] should be [RDF] or similar.
>
> Agree..
>

Fixed

> 5. Suggest rephrasing of "Semantic Web languages are far more specific."
>
> Perhaps change to "Semantic Web languages are far more formal and
> semantically precise"
>

Text has changed sufficiently since I reviewed it, that this comment
seems to be superceded.


> 6. Suggest replace "In contrast to object-oriented languages" with
> "In contrast to many object-oriented languages"
> ("many" could be "well-known" or "most" or "some" or "several"; I prefer
> "many")
>
> I agree with Jeremy...
>

Fixed


> 7. The para stating "In order to "attach" a property to a class" is not
> well-worded, suggest revising for greater clarity and accuracy
>
> Suggest possibly?
>
> In order to "attach" or "associate" a property with a class, rdfs:domain
> statements can be used. rdfs:domain is a tag from the RDF Schema
namespace
> that relates a property to a class using predication. In the example
above,
> the domain of hasPrice is Product. As such, from an object-oriented point
> of view this would mean that all instances of the Product class could
have
> price values associated with them, hence making Price a Product
attribute.
> However, in RDF and OWL this also has additional connotations: any
resource
> that is the object of hasPrice, (i.e. normally a dicreet price value),
must
> also relate to the subject of Product. In other words, a domain statement
> in RDF can be used to classify value instances. Therefore, pointing back
to
> the above example, if something has a price, then it can be handled as an
> instance of Product, even if it partakes in other declarations (or
triples)
> - a crutial matter that will be discussed in more detail later in the
> context of reasoning with OWL.
>
>

Not OK. (Sorry I should have commented on this proposed fix earlier)

Current text reads:
[[
In order to "attach" or "associate" a property with a class, rdfs:domain
statements can be used. rdfs:domain is a tag from the RDF Schema
namespace that relates a property to a class using predication. In the
example above, the domain of hasPrice is Product. As such, from an
object-oriented point of view this would mean that all instances of the
Product class could have price values associated with them, hence making
Price a Product attribute. However, in RDF and OWL this also has
additional connotations: any resource that is the object of hasPrice,
(i.e. normally a discrete price value), must also relate to the subject
of Product. In other words, a domain statement in RDF can be used to
classify value instances. Therefore, pointing back to the above example,
if something has a price, then it can be handled as an instance of
Product, even if it partakes in other declarations (or triples) - a
crutial matter that will be discussed in more detail later in the
context of reasoning with OWL.
]]
==>
my suggestion
[[
In order to "attach" or "associate" a property with a class, rdfs:domain
statements can be used. rdfs:domain is a tag from the RDF Schema
namespace that relates a property to a class using predication. In the
example above, the domain of hasPrice is Product. As such, from an
object-oriented point of view this would mean that all instances of the
Product class could have price values associated with them, hence making
Price a Product attribute. However, in RDF and OWL this also has
additional connotations: any resource that is the subject of hasPrice
is an instance of the Product class. In other words, a domain statement
in RDF can be used to classify instances. Therefore, pointing back to
the above example, if something has a price, then it can be handled as
an instance of Product, even if it partakes in other declarations (or
triples) - a crucial matter that will be discussed in more detail later
in the context of reasoning with OWL.
]]

The current text (as well as spelling on "crucial", confuses domain and
range. Domain makes no comment whatsoever about the object of hte
hasPrice triple.


> 8. The use of RDF Individual in Figure 6 is useful but misleading, in
> that RDF does not provide such a class. owl:Thing is perhaps the
> closest. Perhaps the best thing is simply to leave the figure as is but
> add a footnote to the effect that RDF Individual is introduced in this
> note for explanatory purposes.
>
> Agree

Not fixed. Please fix it. e.g.
[[
As illustrated in Figure 4, a typical object model to represent Semantic
Web ontologies would contain classes to represent resources, classes,
properties and individuals.
]]
==>
[[
As illustrated in Figure 4, a typical object model to represent Semantic
Web ontologies would contain classes to represent resources, classes,
properties and individuals. Note that the terms RDFSClass and
RDFProperty relate to the classes rdfs:Class and rdf:Property defined in
RDF Schema, whereas the term RDFIndividual has no direct counterpart
defined in RDF Schema.
]]

>
> Holger...hope this helps
>
>
>
>
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 11 January 2006 14:02:36 UTC