- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 11:34:38 -0500 (EST)
- To: herman.ter.horst@philips.com
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
From: herman.ter.horst@philips.com Subject: AS & S review: Direct model-theoretic semantics Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 17:42:03 +0100 > AS & S Section 3 Direct model-theoretic semantics > Review comments > > The semantics of minCardinality and maxCardinality should > in fact be interchanged. Good catch! Thanks. > First sentences in Section 3.1: > "The semantics here starts with the notion of a vocabulary, > which can be thought of as the URI references that are of > interest in an OWL ontology. > It is, however, not necessary that a vocabulary consist only > of the URI references in an OWL ontology." > - Here the first sentence is vague and should be more specific. > What does "of interest" mean? Replace by something like: > a vocabulary is a set of URI references including those > appearing in a given OWL ontology. > - Make the second sentence more specific: what else could it be? Changed to: The semantics here starts with the notion of a vocabulary, which is a set of URI references. When considering an OWL ontology, the vocabulary must include all the URI references in that ontology, as well as ontologies that are <a href="owl_imports_closure">imported</a> by the ontology, but can include other URI references as well. > Next sentence: there should be the word and > between owl:Thing and owl:Nothing Fixed already. > The second line about Individual(...) in the table of > Section 3.2 requires a subscript 1 with c in EC(c). Good catch. Thanks. > In the same table: the two lines on oneOf could use explanation: > the i's are individual ids, the v's are data values. > Without such explanation, it is unclear why there are two > lines for oneOf. Added qualifiers into the table. > First sentence in Section 3: > replace "the abstract syntax" by the OWL/DL abstract syntax > (to use the recently introduced improvement to terminology) > and mention that OWL Lite is not dealt with separately. > (Instead of such a sentence only in Section 4, this could > be stated here for both Sections 3 and 4.) Added. I think that it deserves to be restated in Section 4. > Definition of abstract OWL interpretation: > Jan Wielemaker and Guus mentioned to me that they needed to recall the > 2^X notation. In fact, it is preferable to use the notation P(X) > for power set: this is more mnemonic, more > widely used in mathematical theories, and does not need the > use of ^ to simulate superscripts. > Suggestion: use notation P(X) (with P italics), and mention briefly > what power set means. Done. > Section 3.2: table > This table is called "Description Interpretation table". > However, the last five entries do not deal with descriptions > but with "fact fragments". Changed to EC Extension Table. > The table in Section 3.2 uses single arrows for implication. > The standard use of arrow is in function notation, also appearing > in this section. I suggest to move for implication to double > arrows: =>, a more standard notation anyway. Changed instead to ``implies''. > Near the end of the section there is the sentence: > "An Abstract OWL interpretation, I, satisfies an OWL ontology, O, > iff I satisfies each axiom and fact in the imports closure of O." > Suggestion to add the following sentence to clarify a point that > is left implicit in the entire section: > This implies that the vocabulary V of the interpretation includes > all the URI references included in the imports closure of O. I added this to the wording at the beginning. > An abstract OWL ontology should in my view not have a capital > first A in the word abstract (as is done often). I'm leaving this is as is to try to give ``Abstract'' a technical flavour. peter
Received on Friday, 17 January 2003 11:34:55 UTC