- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 11:15:51 -0500 (EST)
- To: herman.ter.horst@philips.com
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
From: herman.ter.horst@philips.com Subject: AS & S review: Abstract, Introduction, Abstract Syntax Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 17:33:59 +0100 > Abstract: > As was also mentioned by Guus, OWL Full should be mentioned. > > -- > Introduction (and table of contents): > > It should also be mentioned in the introduction what Appendix > A.2 does, or, better, in the current state, intends to do. <a href="proofs.html">Appendix A</a> also contains the sketch of a proof that the entailments in the RDFS-compatible semantics for OWL Full include all the entailments in the RDFS-compatible semantics for OWL DL. > We discussed already earlier that the entire semantics document > does not contain the word normative. > What comes most close is still the following part of the > introduction: > "Appendix A contains a proof that the direct and RDFS-compatible > semantics have the same consequences on OWL ontologies that > correspond to abstract OWL ontologies that separate OWL > individuals, OWL classes, OWL properties, and the RDF, RDFS, > and OWL structural vocabulary. For such OWL ontologies the > direct model theory is authoritative and the RDFS-compatible > model theory is secondary." > The appendices contain the word "informative" in their title. > Since not all of Sections 2 to 5 is normative, I believe that > it is a good idea to add to the (sub)section names the words > normative and informative where appropriate. I am not aware that this is needed. > -- > Abstract Syntax: > > When you read the later sections on direct semantics and > mapping to RDF graphs, you often need to refer back to the > abstract syntax, especially the OWL DL syntax (never the Lite > syntax). > It is then inconvenient that the OWL DL syntax is described > by modification of OWL Lite syntax. > I noted that in fact, Section 2.3.2 on OWL DL axioms gives > the OWL DL axioms almost completely: only the last part > of the property axioms is missing. > I suggest to add therefore 1) the following sentence to Section > 2.3.2.4: > As in OWL Lite, the following axioms make several properties > be equivalent, or make one property be a sub-property of > another: ... . > and 2) to add to the first paragraph of Section 2.3 that > However, Section 2.3.2 lists the OWL DL axioms completely. > > This simple change would greatly facilitate reading the later > parts of the document (compare also my remarks about the section > on mapping to RDF graphs). Good idea. I've slightly changed the proposed wording for 2).
Received on Friday, 17 January 2003 11:16:15 UTC