- From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
- Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 11:19:31 -0500
- To: webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
From Raphael: >From: "Raphael Volz" <volz@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de> >To: "Jim Hendler" <hendler@cs.umd.edu> >Subject: WG: Review of Reference Document >Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 14:42:14 -0000 >X-Priority: 3 (Normal) >Importance: Normal >X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.8 required=5.0 > tests=SPAM_PHRASE_00_01 > version=2.43 >X-Spam-Level: > >Hi - > >I already sent it to www-webont-wg@w3.org about 3 hours ago. >But it does not appear in the list of mails... > >Please forward it to the list through your email. > >Thanks > >Raphael btw, my mistake - Raphael's review is of our reference, not the RDF Core one (he will do that one as well) -JH >Review of Language Reference Document >------------------------------------- > > >o The Abstract does not include any hints about the >relation of the document wrt. to other documents. >---> Suggest including link to "Reading Track" and >positioning of document intention. > >o this is done in detail in introductory remarks, but should >be briefly mentioned on top of the page to facilitate easy >reading, > >o Update Index with SUbsections of section 2 > >Introductory Remarks should start with something like that: > >"This document gives a systematic, compact and informal description of all >the modelling primitives of OWL. We expect this document to serve as a >reference guide for users of the OWL language. >The document additionally specifies the normative exchange syntax for OWL. >This >defines the collection of RDF triples which constitue the OWL covabulary and >what the prescribed meaning of >such triples is. RDF Documents using this vocabulary constitute OWL >knowledge bases" > >---> Merges Start of sec and end of sec and some statements in the bullet >enumeration... > > >- Update bullet 3-4 accordingly to: >"An abstract syntax serving as a basis for formal specification is specified >in the OWL Web Ontology Language 1.0 Abstract Syntax and Semantics [OWL >Abstract Syntax and Semantics]. >It also provides a precise and formal definition of the meaning of the >language constructs by means of a Tarski-style Model Theory. > >o Update Bullet 5 to say: > - OWL comes in 3 Layers. Lowest Layer OWL Lite is described in "Feature >Synopsis" > ? General question, do we need a feature synopsis for OWL DL, >OWL Full ? > >o Remove Presentation Syntax (Bullet 6) unless delivered in time. > >o Requirements Document Reference is missing > >o Test Case Document Reference is missing > > >Subsec Different Syntactic Forms >--> Say that the RDF graph is the normative exchange syntax, independent >of the particular RDF serialization used in a document. >--> Personally I find the used wording a little clumpsy >--> Syntax Note should also be reflected in GUIDE ? > >Subsec Mixing OWL with arbitrary RDF >o Link to A.Syn.Sem. for formal specification. >--> Mixing Note should als be reflected in GUIDE ? > >Sec Language Structure >What does it mean to have more than one header ? > >- Versioning info >o Remove reference to issue ? Write consequence of resolution into doc > >- Imports >o Remove reference to issue ? Write consequence into doc. >o What does > >- Objects and dt values >--> Be more precise: OWL also allows the use of XML SIMPLE! Datatypes. > >- Class Elements >--> Explain (0,*) Boolean Exoressions better (mention involved tags) >--> Mention Tag for enumeration (owl:oneOf) > >- Class Expressions >--> Refactor last paragraph into new subsection "Predefined Classes" > >- Enumerations >--> Speak of individual instead of instances. > >--> Subsec on Boolean COmbinations is missing at this point, move later >occurence up. Mention that intersectionOf is in OWL Lite > >- Property Restriction > >Might want to mention that hasValue is not available in Lite > > >- Sec Property Elements >Talk of individuals instead of instances >" >Notice that owl:FunctionalProperty and owl:InverseFunctionalProperty specify >global cardinality restrictions. That is, no matter what class the property >is applied to, the cardinality constraints must hold, unlike the various >cardinality properties used in property restrictions, which are part of a >class element, and are only enforced on the property when applied to that >class. >" >---> raises the question what happens when the constraints do not hold ? Do >we entail >equivalence or raise an exception.... unspecified behaviour ? > >- Sec Instances >o Rename to Individuals > >- Sec Datatypes >o Make explicit that we are only dealing with XML SIMPLE! Datatypes. >Put reference to XML Schema doc where those types are enumerated. >Give example of usage. > >Appendix D: >o Insert paragraph on datatype treatment > >7 -> rdf:domain, rdf:range instead of owl:domain/range > >Mit freundlichen Grüßen, >Best regards, > >Raphael Volz >Institut AIFB, Universität Karlsruhe >http://www.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/WBS/rvo >volz@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de > >WIM, FZI Karlsruhe >http://wim.fzi.de/ >volz@fzi.de -- Professor James Hendler hendler@cs.umd.edu Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies 301-405-2696 Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab. 301-405-6707 (Fax) Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 240-731-3822 (Cell) http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler
Received on Thursday, 30 January 2003 11:57:19 UTC