- From: Lynn Andrea Stein <lynn.stein@olin.edu>
- Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 14:50:23 -0500
- To: Guus Schreiber <schreiber@swi.psy.uva.nl>
- CC: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Gee, I really hadn't meant to be keeping any secrets! I just thought that my comments were long, wordy, unedited (so as to be both occasionally impolite and not very well organized or user-friendly), and not entirely relevant to the group as a whole. But, for the die hards, they're included here. (I still have not taken the time to edit them for public consumption/readability, so take them with a grain of salt or three.) Lynn Andrea Stein wrote: > Jeff, I'm sorry these are so late. I've tried to keep them very > specific and constructive. Also, this isn't the whole document but is > likely to be all I can get you in time. > > Lynn > > These comments were made on the Feb 7 2002 draft. I have not had time > to cross-check against the draft of 20 Feb. > > Section 1 > > Replace "This document collects..." (para. 2) and para. 3 with the > following two para.s > > This document is intended to motivate the need for a Web Ontology > language as well as the goals and subsequent undertakings of this > working group. It explains *what* a Web Ontology language should > accomplish and *why*. In later documents, we intend to describe a > specific Web Ontology language (which we will call Owl) and to explain > how Owl accomplishes the requirements and goals set forth here. > > This document specifies goals, requirements, and desired scenarios on > which the Web Ontology Working Group has reached agreement. It also > descxribes other features that may or may not be included in our final > product, but do not represent the current consensus of the working > group. Features in this latter category are noted as open issues. > > In para. 5, replace "a couple of months after" with "within a few months > of"; also add a bullet: > o currently extant proposals for such a Web Ontology language as well > as other proposals that mayb e made or refined within this interval. > > Section 1.1 > > To replace part of first paragraph: > > There is a substantial history of this kind of work within the > artificial intelligence and knowledge representation communities (and, > indeed, the philosophy literature dating back millenia). The WebOnt > Working Group has undertakes its task with clear sight of this > background literature but also with a firm understanding of the > fundamental nature of the World Wide Web -- distributed, decentralized, > and huge -- and of the ways in which this historical research will need > to be adapted to make it pragmatically useful within the web context. > > (I think it's important to put in a historical footnote here but also to > point out that that work is not directly applicable without > modification.) > > Section 2 > > Expand intro paragraph to include: > understanding what is needed in each case, what we want to acheive, > and how existing World Wide Web technologies fall short of these goals. > > Overall comment on use cases: It would be good to end each use case > with requirements OR (perhaps better) to shift all of the requirements > to a later section. The lack of parallelism is disturbing, though. > > Section 2.1 > > Replace last sentence of first para with > Each web portal allows individuals who are interested in the topic to > receive news, find and talk to one another, build a community, and find > links to other web resources of common interest. [delete the community > of and change that to who and add build a community] > > Next para: providers' (add apostrophe after s in providers) n Same > modification in next paragraph (providers' annotating) > > Next para: may not provide the community....the content that ITS > MEMBERS require... Also add an example as this does not seem > sufficiently evocative. > > Section 2.2 > > I generally found this example less general and straightforward than > many of the others. Perhaps it could be generalized slightly to include > audio and other non-text web objects (though the examples could remain > specific). I think that the issues are largely similar. > > Ontologies can be used to provide semantic annotation ofr collections of > images, audio, or other non-textual web objects. (Rest of para. same, > except "...can describe these nontextual objects in different ways..." > and "...retrieval of nontextual objects without requiring > domain-specific search tools".) > > Second para then starts > > An ontology for nontextual objects should have the following features. > ...utilize the part structure of the nontextual objects depicted... > ("utilize part structure" doesn't work as a phrase for me. Add THE?) > > The example is *extremely* specific and perhaps as a consequence less > evocative. It also speaks more to the domain of antique furniture than > to the domain of image (or nontextual object) collections. An example > such as "Arctic Fjord" or "Picasso's Blue Period" might be more > generally accessible. But if you are going to stick with these > examples, it would be a good idea to provide an example to support the > taxonomy claim and the part structure claim. > > Also typo: the a "chest of drawers" > > And finally, a chest of drawers is simply NOT typically made of > mahogany, though perhaps a Late Georgian chest would be. > > Section 2.3 > > Why/in what sense is this "corporate" web site management? Any large > organization, no? I guess this one doesn't feel like it hangs together > so well either. It certainly begins in a textually awkward way. (What > is the point? I suppose I'm still not sure even after having read it.) > Again, I think that some of the issues might be the overly specific > language. (Also specific issue: large corporation's -- add > apostrophe) > > E.g., the salesperson example strikes me as: > > Different members of the organization use different vocabularies. For > example, ... (And the phrase "So keyword sarch will often be > inadequate." is not a sentence, it's a fragment, not to mention an > awkward one.) > > and the technical person e.g. looks like > > identifying experts within the organization > > or > > Q+A/FAQ or a knowledge repository > > And the final example seems like the need to > > assemble case studies of past experience within the organization > > I find the whole case study eg, from "Consider a past project..." > through "..Furthermore, a parametric search" to be reasonably > incomprehensible. > > Also, the para. that starts It is important to note is not really a > use case item; it doesn't belong in this section at all, though it may > belong elsewhere in this document. > > I'd probably pull the requirements from the specific use case into a > later section of the document. > > Section 2.4 > > Again, make general. There's no way that this is about aerospace > engineering documentation. > > The task involved in this use case is to classify and crosslink a large > body of engineering documentation. This documentation falls into > several different types: ... > > Last sentence of secont paragraph is awkward. Physical objects and > their ontologies are developed in tandem? > > "effectivity" is not a word. Effectiveness? Also, "we may need to > know, e.g., for a given aircraft...." This whole paragraph is about > retrospective analysis, e.g. in the case of an airplane accident. (It's > more general than aerospace...) > > Same issue with respect to the requirements in this section; I'd move > them all later. > > Section 2.5 > > An *evening* planner? Maybe an itinterary planner or an activities or > social planner. (Similar change of the word "evening" throughout) This > example seems to mix specifics in a funny way (e.g., sf.yahoo.com?!?) I > think it is really about planning an itinerary. > > Section 2.7 > > Add a summary of requirements. This would be a reasonable place to > collect the requirements from the individual tasks above. > > Section 3 > > 3.1 Shared ontologies > Justification > > OK, but the first paragraph is an explanation, not a > justification....this isn't WHY we need shared ontologies. Also, how do > we enforce the alleged commitments you're describing here. > > A better justification: > > (1) need the benefits of communicating in terms of shared definitions > (2) need to minimize the work for "near miss" ontologies, i.e., when > there's an almost-appropriate ontology > > (In your text: 90% of what IT needS, not THEY NEED) > > RDF support: Combining the schema's (insert ') > Also RDF isn't unclear on anything; The RDF spec might be. > > 3.2 Ontology evolution > Justification: > > errors in prior versions, BECAUSE a new way..., or BECAUSE > reality...(e.g., BY the additon...) > > ...without changing any axioms: How would I know? How would this be > enforced? What does it mean to change an intended meaning, anyway. > (What effect does the intention of the author have?!?) > > If you keep the text, break the sentence after axioms (PERIOD) (new > sentence) Thus, determining... > > 3.3 Inconsistency detection > > ...it should be possible to detect.... > > computationally??!?? But isn't this the halting problem? Heck, > propositionally it's SAT, which is pretty nasty. This is decidability!! > > 3.4 Ontology interoperability > > no comma after different ontologies > > Justification: > > Realistically, this will happen on the web. OWL ought to support it. > > 4 Requirements > > Did you collect all of the requirements listed in the use cases? > > Say explicitly at the end of the introductory paragraph: > > The motivations listed here are references back to the use cases of > section 2 where at least one motivating example for each of these > requirements is presented. > > More tomorrow if I can, but this should be enough for you :o) > > p.s. not sent to webont-wg cause I didn't edit this note carefully, but > if you want to circulate it by all means do so.
Received on Friday, 22 February 2002 14:50:23 UTC