Re: Some comments on OWL S&AS

It's acceptable. Thanks!

Yuzhong Qu

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: <yzqu@seu.edu.cn>
Cc: <public-webont-comments@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2003 11:23 PM
Subject: Re: Some comments on OWL S&AS


> Again, thank you for your comments.   In this message I propose some
> editorial and tyopgraphical changes that I think might help to address
> most of them.
> 
> > 1. 
> > 
> > [2.1. Ontologies 
> > 
> > There are two built-in classes in OWL,....
> >  The class with identifier owl:Thing is the class of all individuals, and
> > is part of OWL Lite. The class with identifier owl:Nothing is the empty
> > class.  
> > ...
> > ]
> > 
> > It should be explicitly specified whether or not owl:Nothing is included
> > in OWL Lite.  
> 
> I have made the editorial change to add ``, and is part of OWL DL, but not
> part of OWL Lite'' at the end of the above quote.
> 
> > It would be nice and elegant to include owl:Nothing in OWL Lite if there
> > is no harm to do so. 
> 
> It was a working group decision to not include owl:Nothing in OWL Lite,
> even though an equivalent class can be defined in OWL Lite.  Your comment,
> however, will be considered by the working group.
> 
> > 2.
> > 
> > [2.3. Axioms
> > ...
> > However, **most information about properties** is more naturally
> > expressed in restrictions, which allow local range and cardinality
> > information to be specified.  
> > ...
> > ]
> > Restrictions are about to define new classes, not to specify
> > properties. So the above sentence should be modified if possible.  
> 
> Information about properties is not exactly specifying those properties.  I
> do agree, however, that this sentence could be said better, so I've changed
> it to read ``most information concerning how properties'' .  It would also
> be possible to write a much longer explanation of the difference here, but
> I feel that that would not be helpful here.
> 
> > 3.
> > 
> > [2.3.1.2. OWL Lite Restrictions
> > 
> > cardinality ::= 'minCardinality(0)' | 'minCardinality(1)' |
> >             | 'maxCardinality(0)' | 'maxCardinality(1)' |
> >             | 'cardinality(0)'    | 'cardinality(1)'
> > ]
> > 
> > There are two reduantant symbols '|'.
> 
> Thanks for noticing.  I made the typographical change to eliminate them.
> 
> > 4. About individual
> > 
> > Just suggestion:
> > The named individual and the anonymous individual should be explicitly
> > separated. There are some essential differnce between facts about named
> > individuals and the ones about anonymous individuals.  
> 
> I believe that the following explanatory text from Section 2.2 
> 
> An individual can be given an individualID that will denote that
> individual, and can be used to refer to that individual.  However,
> an individual need not be given an individualID; such individuals
> are anonymous (blank in RDF terms) and cannot be directly referred
> to elsewhere.  The syntax here is set up to somewhat mirror RDF/XML
> syntax RDF Syntax without the use of rdf:nodeID.
> 
> adequately makes the distinction between named and anonymous individuals.
> I also believe that there does not need to be separate productions for
> them, particularly as the productions are very similar.
> 
> > Yuzhong Qu
> > Dept.Computer Science and Engineering
> > Southest University, Nanjing, China
> > http://cse.seu.edu.cn/People/yzqu/en
> 
> Please reply to the mailing list as to whether the above changes adequately
> address your comments (except for whether owl:Nothing is in OWL Lite, which
> will be separately addressed).
> 
> Again, thank you.
> 
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> Bell Labs Research
> Lucent Technologies
> 
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 15 April 2003 20:34:16 UTC