- From: Smith, Michael K <michael.smith@eds.com>
- Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 08:47:47 -0500
- To: "Lacy . Lee" <LLacy@drc.com>, public-webont-comments@w3.org
Lacy, Thanks again for your comments. In this message I have tried to either answer your questions or propose an editorial change that I think addresses them. Please reply to the mailing list as to whether the above changes adequately address your comments. > Here are some minor (mostly editorial) OWL Language Guide > Comments/Suggestions: > Section 2, paragraph 2, change "addtion" to "addition". Done. > Section 2 namespace examples are identified as "typical", yet they are > all w3.org URIs. Most implementers will have non-w3.org URIs for > their ontology files. I meant the structure was "typical", not the content. Added Of course, the URI's of the defined ontologies will not usually be w3.org references. > Section 2.2, paragraph beginning "One common", change "here are the > some" to "here are some". Done. > Section 3.4.3, change "this is" to "hasValue is". Might be confusing. The example is an owl:Restriction that hasValue is contained in. So we don't want to refer to hasValue as a restriction. > Section 7.1, change "Many of sites" to "Sites". Changed to "Many sites" > In section 4.2, the discussion on "sameAs" and "sameIndividualAs" is > confusing. The guide recommends using "sameIndividualAs", but the > reference document, section 5.2, says that "sameIndividualAs" is > supported for "historical reasons". I introduced sameIndividualAs first because I wanted to introduce the simpler notion before talking about sameAs with respect to classes. The Reference editor and I have agreed that the Reference will strike the "for historical reasons" wording. > Section 3.1.3 helps explain a difficult concept of mixing classes and > instances. The example is very helpful, but it seems that someone > would name a class "GrapeVarietal" to help reduce confusion. This naming has a lot to do with simplicity in the presentation of the ontology. We didn't want to get into a lengthy discussion of what a varietal was before we introduced grape. In a mature ontology I think you are right. But for now I propose to leave it as 'grape'. - Mike Michael K. Smith, Ph.D., P.E. EDS - Austin Innovation Centre 98 San Jacinto, #500 Austin, TX 78701 phone: +01-512-404-6683 email: michael.smith@eds.com -----Original Message----- From: Lacy . Lee [mailto:LLacy@drc.com] Sent: Monday, April 21, 2003 3:30 PM To: public-webont-comments@w3.org Subject: Language Guide Comments Here are some minor (mostly editorial) OWL Language Guide Comments/Suggestions: Section 2, paragraph 2, change "addtion" to "addition". Section 2 namespace examples are identified as "typical", yet they are all w3.org URIs. Most implementers will have non-w3.org URIs for their ontology files. Section 2.2, paragraph beginning "One common", change "here are the some" to "here are some". Section 3.4.3, change "this is" to "hasValue is". Section 7.1, change "Many of sites" to "Sites". In section 4.2, the discussion on "sameAs" and "sameIndividualAs" is confusing. The guide recommends using "sameIndividualAs", but the reference document, section 5.2, says that "sameIndividualAs" is supported for "historical reasons". Section 3.1.3 helps explain a difficult concept of mixing classes and instances. The example is very helpful, but it seems that someone would name a class "GrapeVarietal" to help reduce confusion.
Received on Tuesday, 29 April 2003 09:48:01 UTC