W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > February 2002

REQDOC: Copy-editing comments (long, boring to non-editors)

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 12:20:57 -0500
Message-Id: <p05101408b8a16c7f70d6@[]>
To: Jeff Heflin <heflin@cse.lehigh.edu>
Cc: webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Jeff et al  -
  I have done a careful read through trying to ignore semantics and 
simply copyedit the document.  Below are changes that should be made 
as they don't change the meaning of the document in any significant 
way, but fix readability:

  change "goals, requirements and usage scenarios"
  to "usage scenarios, goals and requirements"
so they parallel the document structure

  ... so that fine, accurate, ...
"fine" is ambiguous in this context - could be deleted or made 
clearer (i.e. "detailed")

  3rd para  change - "In order allow more intelligent..." to
    "In order to allow more intelligent"
missing word

  3rd bullet of features
   change "increases significantly" to
   "significantly increases"
better English

  In this section single quote marks are used instead of double quotes 
throuhgout, this is both bad English and inconsistent with remainder 
of document.  quote marks should be doubled or removed - recommended 
rewrite included below (APPENDED 1)
  In addition, suggest that the examples of constraints be slightly 
reformatted for readability - also in the below (APPENDED 1)
  In addition, centred -> centered as we are using US spellings 
throughout rest of the document (or we can make whole thing UK 
spellings - but that needs more editing)

  1st paragraph
     change "an social" to "a social"
     change "and will use" to "an use" (consistent tense)
     change "  'best' " to "  "best" " (double quotes req.)
  2nd paragraph
     perhaps change "...and the general Internet" to
      "and the general Web" (or WWW or World Wide Web)
     Internet is inconsistent w/earlier use of web as target
  3rd paragraph
     change "  'virtual' cities " to " "virtual cities" " (fix quotes 
and English)

  1st and 2nd paragraphs
  The term "ad hoc" is usually italicized, but in the case of "ad hoc 
network" it sometimes isn't.  Perhaps change the two uses of "ad hoc" 
to <em> ad hoc </em>.

   4th paragraph
    change "human "in the loop" " to "human in the loop" (remove 
quotes) - quotes not needed.

   5th paragraph
     change "DAML-S" to
          <a href="http://www.daml.org/services/"> DAML-S </a>
      to be consistent with linking to other languages mentioned

Design goals -
  note: throughout we use h3 and h4 to be consistent w/W3C style, but 
it sure seems to me to make it easier to find the bold h4s than the 
non-bold h3s.  Probably shouldn't chnage - but someone should yell at 
Dan C. about this :->

  RDF Support - the paragraph ends with an unsupported clause in an argument.
  suggest addition of "which perpetuates the error." at end of the section (i.e.
   "...v1:Fish which perpetuates the error"

3.3 Justification
  change "there needs to be primitives" to "there need to be 
primitives" (fix number agreement)
   change "map terms to equivalents" to "map terms to their 
equivalents" (better English)

4 - requirements
  Classes as instances
   change "support the ability to treat class as instances." to
     "support the ability to treat classes as instances." (agreement)
   motivation - change "image collections use case" to
    "multimedia collections use case"  (Correct name - also needs to 
be changed elsewhere, see below)

5 - objectives
  default property values motivation
    -> multimedia collection use case

  ability to state closed worlds
  change "the language must ..." to "the language should..."
   must is incompatible with the objectives statement where you say "maybe"

  commitment to portions of ontologies
    change "choose" to "to choose" twice in the paragraph - need to 
use infinitive verb form here.

  aggregation and grouping
   "This would allow interoperability between ontologies that 
represented information at different levels of granularity, and could 
relate things such as budget category totals and budget line item 
amounts, or number of personnel to individual data on employees"
  to (note - only one word change!)
  "This would allow interoperability between ontologies that 
represented information at different levels of granularity, and could 
relate things such as budget category totals to budget line item 
amounts, or number of personnel to individual data on employees"

the change of "and" to "to" makes the parallel construction work

Definitional constraints on conjunctive types
   There is an open quotation - you need to add a double quote after 1811
   -> multimedia collection use case

APPENDED 1 - reworked 2.4 to fix quotes:

<h3><a name="usecase-designdoc">2.4 Design documentation</a></h3>

<p>This use case is for a large body of engineering documentation,
such as that used by the aerospace industry. This documentation can be of
several different types, including design documentation, 
manufacturing documentation,
and testing documentation. These document sets each have a hierarchical
structure, but these structures differ between the sets. There is also
a set of implied axes which cross-link the documentation sets: for
example, in aerospace design documents, an item
such as a wing spar might appear in each.</p>

<p>Ontologies can be used to build an information model which allows 
the exploration
of the information space in terms of the items which are represented, the
associations between the items, the properties of the items, and the links to
documentation which describes and defines them (i.e., the external 
for the existence of the item in the model). That is to say that the 
ontology and taxonomy
are not independent of the physical items they represent, but may be 
in tandem.</p>

<p>There are also issues of "effectivity" - design documentation may specify
a particular part-number with associated specification: in practice there
may be two (or more) suppliers for a part, and we need to know, for a given
aircraft, which supplier was used. (This is particularly relevant in accident
investigation, as both parts may satisfy a specification, but their
out-of-spec performances may differ).</p>

<p>In the aerospace domain, typical users include:</p>
<li>Maintenance engineer looking for all information relating
to a particular part (eg. "wing-spar").
<li>Design engineer looking at
constraints on re-use of a particular sub-assembly.

<p>A common use of the ontology is to support the visualisation and
editing of charts which show snapshots of the information space centered on
a particular object (class or instance). These are typically activity/rule
diagrams or entity-relationship diagrams. </p>

<p>This use case has the following needs:
<ul><li>Constraints, often for consistency checking. An example
constraint might be:<br>
(aircraft.type = biplane) <i>entails</i> 
(CardinalityOf(InstancesOf(Class = Wing)) = 2)<br>
( (wingsparX isComponentOf wingY) <i>entails</i> <br>
       (  (wingsparX.length) &lt; (wingY.length))	)

<li> Language-neutral representation - this is a multinational industry.
In fact one might call this dialect-neutral representation, as we find
multiple taxonomies for a given space, even in a single language
(not least in government).

<li>Instances distinct from classes (see the discussion on 
part-numbers and suppliers above).

<li>N-ary relationships

<li>Clean interface to other standards including (but not only)
XML-standards. This is a standards-based industry, and the clear
relationship of OWL to RDF/RDFS/DAML+OIL etc. is important.

Professor James Hendler				  hendler@cs.umd.edu
Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies	  301-405-2696
Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab.	  301-405-6707 (Fax)
AV Williams Building, Univ of Maryland		  College Park, MD 20742
Received on Tuesday, 26 February 2002 12:21:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:04:27 UTC