Re: AS & S review

Passing the buck...

As I recall, we identified good ol' REF as the "dustbin" document.  At 
this point we are not accepting major changes to Guide.  So "lists of 
lists" restrictions should go in REF, if anywhere...

-Chris


Dr. Christopher A. Welty, Knowledge Structures Group
IBM Watson Research Center, 19 Skyline Dr.
Hawthorne, NY  10532     USA 
Voice: +1 914.784.7055,  IBM T/L: 863.7055
Fax: +1 914.784.6078, Email: welty@us.ibm.com






"Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Sent by: www-webont-wg-request@w3.org
01/16/2003 04:53 AM
 
        To:     Ziv.Hellman@unicorn.com
        cc:     www-webont-wg@w3.org
        Subject:        Re: AS & S review



From: "Ziv Hellman" <Ziv.Hellman@unicorn.com>
Subject: AS & S review
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 17:39:51 +0200

> My impressions:
> 
> 
> 1. Localization needs to be explained more fully and far earlier than 
its
> appearance somewhere in the appendices. The distinction between
> localization requirements between DL and Full must be more clearly
> expressed.

There is already a bit in rdfs.html about localization.  I made an anchor
and linked the example back to that.

> 2. The fact that 'lists of lists' are forbidden in DL but permitted in 
Full
> was only explained to me at the Manchester ftf. I imagine others reading
> this document may have missed this as well. It should be noted, with a 
full
> explanation as to why, in AS&S.

There are very many things of this variety.  The general principles are
given in AS&S.  I believe that AS&S is not the place to enumerate these
things, and, specifically, it is not the place to mention just a few of
them.   If this belongs anywhere, it belongs in Guide.

> 3. What does 'annotation' mean in the context of OWL, and what are the
> differences between annotations in DL and Full? Are parsers set to
> Lite/DL/Full compliance expected to assume certain nodes are annotation 
or
> not?

Annotation is a bit of the abstract syntax that can be used for the
ontology annotations, etc., that were recently added to OWL.  They are
fully handled in AS&S.  A detailed treatment of this subject is contained
in Section 4.2.

> 4. Am I misreading the following bit from Appendix B?
> 
> John rdf:type _:x .
> _:y owl:onProperty friend .
> _:y owl:allValuesFrom _:y .
> 
> 
> 
> Is the _:x supposed to be there, or is a _:y intended?

It should be

John rdf:type _:y .

Thanks for noticing.  I've made the fix.


peter

Received on Thursday, 16 January 2003 22:27:48 UTC