RE: Guide review

Thanks, Jeremy.  Responses below.

- Mike

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
> The discussion of imports is insufficient, since the interaction with
levels 
> of OWL is complicated. 

Hmmm.  Either

1. This is not that complex, since the level of OWL is a function of
   the merged content of this and the imported ontologies.
OR
2. The level of complexity is inappropriate for the Guide.  

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
> There should be additional sections concerning the relationship with
RDF/XML 
> documents particularly clarifying that the ise of bnodes in OWL DL and OWL

> Lite is restricted and that the classes and some properties must be
declared 
> appropriately.

One reason for sticking with RDF/XML was to avoid mention of bnodes.
I think a lot of this will be invisible to a user (as opposed to an
implementer).  ?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
> Introduction
> 
> "There is nothing preventing ... exclusively individuals"
> 
> Misleading, since, in owl Lite and OWL DL, and triple
> 
> <x> rdf:type <eg:foo> .
> 
> must be accompanied by a triple
> 
> <eg:foo> rdf:type owl:Class .
> 
> Suggest replace "exclusively" with "nearly exclusively".

Triple-centric thinking? In RDF/XML, we can say

<rdf:RDF 
  xmlns:vin = "http://www.example.org/wine#"
  xmlns:owl = "http://www.w3.org/2002/7/owl#"
  xmlns:rdf = "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
  <owl:Ontology rdf:about=""/>
  <vin:wine rdf:ID="thunderbird">
</rdf:RDF>

Can't we?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
> The Species of OWL
> -----------
> Suggest add a paragraph indicating that when creating OWL documents in
RDF/XML 
> by hand significant additional care is needed to ensure that it meets the 
> syntactic requirements of OWL DL, and much more with respect to OWL Lite.

Does not seem needed.  Like saying "Care should be taken when writing C to
not 
use constructs from C++". 

----[DONE]------------------------------------------------------------------
----

> I note that the cardinality examples have not been updated to reflect the 
> datatyping decisions.

----[TODO]------------------------------------------------------------------
----

> I suggest the extension of the DTD internal subset as described in
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Dec/0254.html

This looks like a great idea.  Does this really work? 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
> Ontology Headers
> 
> Discussion of imports does not deal with the limitations of import in its 
> inability to meet the syntactic requirements associated with OWL Lite and
OWL 
> DL. Specifically the fact that the OWL Lite file:
> 
> <x> rdf:type <eg:foo> .
> <eg:foo> rdf:type owl:Class .
> 
> cannot be split into two files with an imports.

Again, I am only proposing to use RDF/XML syntax in the Guide.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
> The comment about Dublin Core is misleading for OWL DL and OWL Lite see my

> comments in my Feature Synopsis Review.

So a line asserting the values are restricted to strings would be
sufficient?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
> Simple Properties
> 
> With the  first example, it appears to be in OWL Lite, but it requires the

> supporting definitions
> <owl:Class rdf:ID="Wine"/>
> <owl:Class rdf:ID="WineGrape"/>
> (without these it is in OWL Full).

Both of these are defined above.  What am I missing?

> It is not clear to me how/where best to express this. There is quite a lot
of 
> other implicit stuff concerning this example - and I don't want to
highlight 
> this single issue over and above say xml namespaces.
> 
> Similarly in the example with the minCardinality there is a need to decide

> whether to explicitly add the rdf:datatype attributes or whether to use 
> default attributes as I have suggested. In the latter case there is a 
> presentational issue about how/where to explain it.

Yes.  TODO

----[TODO]------------------------------------------------------------------
------

> Properties and Datatypes

> I thought we had dropped the user defined types, in which case this whole 
> section needs rework (or deletion).
> I note that user defined types are in the abstract syntax document ....

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---- 
> Complex Classes
> Intersection
> 
> The following very similar class (semantically identical) is in OWL Lite.
> I wonder if you can manage to explain it? (I couldn't).
> 
> <owl:Class rdf:ID="WhiteWine">
>   <owl:sameClassAs>
>    <rdf:Description>
>   <owl:intersectionOf rdf:parseType="Collection">
>     <owl:Class rdf:about="#Wine" />
>     <owl:Restriction>
>       <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#hasColor" />
>       <owl:hasValue rdf:resource="#White" />
>     </owl:Restriction>
>   </owl:intersectionOf>
>   </rdf:Description>
>   </owl:sameClassAs>
> </owl:Class>

I don't feel a great compunction to explain that lovely construct.

----[TODO]------------------------------------------------------------------
----
> Enumerated Classes (oneof)
> 
> You could also give an example of a datatype range from the abstract
syntax.
> 
> <dataRange> ::= oneOf({<typedDataLiteral>} )
> 
> (difficult to do because the parseType="Collection" syntax is not usable).
> 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
> References
> 
> Any chance of referencing the more recent RDF WDs?

Absolutely.  If you could give me pointers, that would be a great
help.  Otherwise I will ferret them out later.

Received on Friday, 3 January 2003 17:00:02 UTC