Re: [SE] comments on primer

Jeremy,

OK...the two amendments you suggested have now been included and the note
passed to Jeff Pan for posting. That is to say, the following texts
included

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.

&

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.


Thanks again for your kind help.

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 15:49:14 UTC