Guide: Proposed response to comments

WG,

Proposed response to Lacy.Lee email (attached).  

- Mike


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.

> 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.  But I would propose dropping the last sentence, 

 It is recommended that sameIndividualAs always be used, as it 
 is more informative and reduces the likelihood of mistakes.

since it does not seem accurate.

> 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 will leave it as 'grape'.

Please reply to the mailing list as to whether the above changes adequately 
address your comments.

- 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