- From: Smith, Michael K <michael.smith@eds.com>
- Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 10:03:08 -0600
- To: Jeff Heflin <heflin@cse.lehigh.edu>, "Smith, Michael K" <michael.smith@eds.com>
- Cc: webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Thanks Jeff. Responses below. - Mike > At the F2F, I was actioned to review this document. I think it is almost > ready, but there are still a few things that need to be fixed. Some of > these are simple typos, others a little more substantial, but I think > still easily fixed. > > 1) We need an example of an OWL ontology that consists soley of > instances. These will be the most numerous OWL "ontologies" on the Web, > so we should at least show people how to do them. I think the easiest > way to do this is to take all of the Wine and Winery instances from > wine.owl and move them into a third file called winelist.owl. Then in > section 3.2.1 (Defining Individuals), we can add something like > "Ontologies that describe classes and properties may include > descriptions of individuals. However, many ontologies will consist soley > of individuals. For example, the wine list of a particular restaurant > may be represented as an ontology that describes all of the wines > available. In order to include the descriptions of the various styles of > wine, this ontology must import wine.owl. An example of this is > presented in winelist.owl." This was a great suggestion that Mike Dean made earlier, that I meant to follow up on and have not had time for. I can't devote much more time to the Guide for the rest of this month, so this change currently has low priortiy. > 2) Are the classes WineYear and VintageYear supposed to be the same > thing? In wine.owl, the VintageYear class is never defined, and the > WineYear class is only used to introduce Year1998. Yep. Replaced occurences of WineYear by VintageYear. Year1998 is there as an example. > 3) I don't think the Section 3.5 Ontology Versioning belongs under basic > definitions. I think it should be a section 6 that comes after complex > classes, and that Usage Examples should become section 7. The reason is > I think the guide reader will be interested in ontology mapping and > complex classes, before he or she is interested in ontology versioning. Hmm. I think you are right. Will read more carefully to check dependencies. > 4) Replace the first paragraph in the Ontology Versioning section > (currently 3.5) with the following two paragraphs. (and note the > correction of owl:Ontology capitalization in the 2nd parahraph) > > Ontologies are like software, they will be maintained and thus will > change over time. However, once an ontology has been released, other > documents on the Web may come to depend on it (for example, by importing > it), and any changes may have significant impacts on these dependent > documents. Therefore, when a deployed ontology needs to be updated, the > original file should not be modified. Instead, the changes should be > made to a copy of the ontology which is assigned a different URL. OWL > provides some basic properties to describe relationships between > different versions of an ontology. Note that these properties need not > be used when changing an ontology that is in its design phase and has > not been relased yet. In those situations, there are either no > dependencies or the dependencies can be managed internally, so standard > document or software version management techniques may be used. Seems a little long. Will come up with revised wording. > Within a owl:Ontology element (discussed above), it is possible to link > to a previous version of the ontology being defined. owl:priorVersion is > a standard tag intended to provide this link, and can be used to track > the version history of an ontology. DONE > 5) Sect. 4: Ontology mapping, para 3: > Tool support will almost certainly be required consistency. > > should this be: > > Tool support will almost certainly be required to maintain consistency. DONE > 6) Sect. 4.2 sameIndividualAssameAs > The statement that sameAs "is available mainly for backwards > compatibility" is a little odd. Backwards compatible with what? This is > the first version of owl, and I don't think DAML+OIL had sameAs. I think > it would be better to say "sameAs is a less verbose synonym of > sameIndividualAs." Deleted "and is available mainly for backwards compatibility." > 7) Sect. 4.3, AllDifferent example > change rdf:parsetType to rdf:parseType (remove extra 't') DONE
Received on Wednesday, 22 January 2003 11:03:29 UTC