- From: Deborah L. McGuinness <dlm@ksl.stanford.edu>
- Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 20:58:03 -0800
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- CC: www-webont-wg@w3.org
thanks for your extensive an useful comments.
I incorporated almost everything minus
- name change of document. we need agreement on what the format of our document
names will be. i have a separate email out to webont on this. it is easy to do once
we have a decison.
- owl: usage throughout. previous agreement was not to do this. also this is easy
to put in if we have an agreement.
- i left in section 2 as i defended previously. I left a note in my detailed
responses that if frank wants to put it as an appendix in a pass, that is fine with
me. i do not think this is required.
I did not merge 3.4 and 3.5 but do not have objections to that if that is done in the
same pass. i have no objections but do not think it is required.
-did not handle the missing annotations suggestion but left a comment for frank if he
wanted to handle this.
my suggestion is an easy way of addressing the issue if we think it is necessary.
i wont have time to touch this again at length until after the aaai sss meeting
detailed comments attached at the end.
the update is in the usual place -
http://www.ksl.stanford.edu/people/dlm/webont/OWLOverview.htm
d
"Peter F. Patel-Schneider" wrote:
> Comments on Overview and Guide
>
> (I'm waiting for the new version of Reference before providing comments.)
>
> - title - I changed to
> OWL Web Ontology Language
> Semantics and Abstract Syntax
> on the suggestion of Jim Hendler. This makes it clear that OWL
> is not a misspelling of an acronym. I suggest that we again
> revisit the idea of a common way of naming the documents.
>
> Comments on ``Web Ontology Language (OWL): Overview'' dated ``W3C Working
> Draft 4 March 2003''.
>
> general comment - I STRONGLY suggest using owl: for all OWL terms.
> Reference and Semantics and Abstract Syntax already do so.
> Guide mostly does so also.
>
> general comment - I again suggest removing Section 2. In my opinion,
> Section 2 is decidedly harmful. Note in particular, the bare
> inclusion of intersectionOf in Section 2.1. How will this be
> understood by readers? If a language synopsis is needed, it could
> be an appendix.
>
> general comment - I remain skeptical as to the utility of this document.
> Maybe it is because I do understand OWL, but I find that when
> reading this document I end up with many more questions than
> answers.
>
> missing - annotations
> - name separation in OWL Lite
> - ObjectProperty and DatatypeProperty separation in OWL Lite
> - oneOf over data values
> - references section
>
> title - I suggest
> The OWL Web Ontology Language: Overview
>
> abstract - I suggest starting
> The OWL Web Ontology Language is designed for use by
> applications that need to process the content of
> information instead of just presenting information to
> humans.
>
> web vs Web - I think that ``Web'' is supposed to be used instead of
> ``web''.
>
> abstract - I suggest
> OWL has three increasingly-expressive sublanguages: OWL
> Lite, OWL DL, and OWL Full.
>
> abstract - OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax
>
> status - I suggest
> This overview ... herein are provided to help understand
> OWL, but may not ... OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax.
>
> 1. - I suggest
> The document describes the OWL Web Ontology Language. OWL
> is intended to be used when the information contained in
> documents needs to be processed by applications, as opposed
> to situations where the content only needs to be presented
> to humans. ... is called an ontology.
>
> 1.1 - I suggest
> The following ... .
> - This overview ... .
> - The OWL Guide ... .
> - The OWL Reference ... .
> - The OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax ... .
>
> 1.2 - I suggest
> ... The first level above RDF required for the Semantic Web is an
> ontology language what can formally describe the meaning of
> terminology used in Web documents. ... OWL Use Cases and
> Requirement provides ... for a Web Ontology Langauge.
>
> OWL has been designed to meet this need for a Web Ontology Language.
> OWL is part of the growing stack of W3C recommendations related to
> the Semantic Web.
>
> (don't use a dl here, instead use a ul, as in Section 1.3)
>
> 1.3 - I suggest
>
> OWL Lite ... constraints, OWL Lite ... and OWL Lite provides ...
>
> OWL DL ... want maximum expressiveness while retaining
> computational ...
>
> OWL Full ... unlikely that any reasoning software will be able to
> support complete reasoning for every feature of OWL Full.
>
> ... users require the more-expressive constructs provided by OWL
> DL. ... e.g., ... classes or attaching
>
> ... Every OWL (...) document ...
>
> 1.4 - I suggest
>
> ... features of OWL Lite ... OWL Full. OWL DL and ... .
>
> 2 - I suggest
>
> This section provides ....
>
> 2 - See comment on using owl:
>
> 2.1 - I suggest
>
> The list ... is given below.
>
> 2.1 - The RDF Schema Features list is confusing to me. What does
> Individual ... have to do with RDF Schema?
>
> 2.1 - Something needs to be added on datatypes.
>
> 2.2 - I suggest that the HTML source be modified to give much less
> spacing
>
> 2.2 - I suggest
> The list ... is
>
> 3 - I suggest
> ... has more limitations on the use of the features than OWL DL or
> OWL Full. In OWL Lite classes ... (cannot be arbitrary
> expressions), ... are also only allowed between named classes,
> ... Similarly, restrictions
>
> 3.1 - The links under SubClassOf and AllValuesFrom are not appropriate.
>
> 3.1 - I suggest
> owl:Class: ... owl:Thing ... a superclass of all OWL classes.
>
> 3.1 - I suggest
> rdfs:subClassOf: ... subclass of another class. ... if an individual is a
> Person, then it is also a Mammal.
>
> 3.1 - I suggest
> rdf:Property: Properties can be used to state relationships between
> individuals or from individuals to data values. ... include
> hasChild, .... The first three can be used to relate .... The last
> (hasAge) can be used to relate ...
>
> 3.1 - I suggest
> rdfs:subPropertyOf: .... that if an individual is related to
> another ..., then it is also related to the other by ....
>
> 3.1 - I suggest
> rdfs:domain: A domain of a property limits the individuals to
> which the property can be applied. If a property relates an
> individual to another, and the property has a class as one of its
> domains, then the individual must belong to the class.
>
> 3.1 - I suggest a similar change for rdfs:range
>
> 3.2 - I suggest
> owl:equivalentClass: Two classes may be stated to be equivalent.
> Equivalent classes have the same instances. ...
>
> 3.2 - I suggest a similar change for equivalentProperty
>
> 3.3 - I suggest not using SSN as an inverse functional property example, as
> it could be misconstrued as implying that OWL Lite allows inverse
> functional on datatype properties.
>
> 3.4 - I suggest merging 3.4 and 3.5
>
> 3.4 - I suggest
> OWL Lite allows restrictions to be placed on how properties can be
> used by instances of a class. The first two kinds of restrictions
> limit which values can be used, the last three kinds limit how may
> values can be used.
>
> 3.4 and 3.5 - I suggest rewriting all five points to fit with the
> introductory wording above.
>
> 3.7 - I suggest something like:
> OWL uses the RDF mechanisms for data values. See the OWL Guide for
> more information.
>
> 3.8 - I suggest
> OWL Lite supports notions of ontology inclusion and relationships
> and attaching information to ontologies. See OWL Reference for
> details and OWL Guide for examples.
>
> 5. - I suggest
> ... Web ...
>
> 5. - The acknowledgments should go in an Acknowledgments section.
>
> ...
>
==============
Pfps Comments on Overview
- title - I changed to
OWL Web Ontology Language
Semantics and Abstract Syntax
on the suggestion of Jim Hendler. This makes it clear that OWL
is not a misspelling of an acronym. I suggest that we again
revisit the idea of a common way of naming the documents.
**dlm – waiting for response for consistent naming option.
Comments on ``Web Ontology Language (OWL): Overview'' dated ``W3C Working
Draft 4 March 2003''.
general comment - I STRONGLY suggest using owl: for all OWL terms.
Reference and Semantics and Abstract Syntax already do so.
Guide mostly does so also.
***dlm – this is not hard to do but goes against the previous agreement by the
group. Not done.
general comment - I again suggest removing Section 2. In my opinion,
Section 2 is decidedly harmful. Note in particular, the bare
inclusion of intersectionOf in Section 2.1. How will this be
understood by readers? If a language synopsis is needed, it could
be an appendix.
***dlm – we have received positive feedback on this section. If frank wants to move
it to an appendix in his pass that is ok with me. I strongly oppose dropping it.
general comment - I remain skeptical as to the utility of this document.
Maybe it is because I do understand OWL, but I find that when
reading this document I end up with many more questions than
answers.
***dlm – previous comments remain as to the value of this document. This author has
only received additional positive feedback as to the value.
missing - annotations
- name separation in OWL Lite
- ObjectProperty and DatatypeProperty separation in OWL Lite
- oneOf over data values
- references section
*dlm – have not touched this. Might consider the first three advanced topics and
point to guide.
references could be added too in that pass.
we do not have a standard references requirement for example, the use case document
does not have references and i do not consider this critical but agree that it is
fine to add them.
title - I suggest
The OWL Web Ontology Language: Overview
*dlm – if this is the new consensus, that is fine.
abstract - I suggest starting
The OWL Web Ontology Language is designed for use by
applications that need to process the content of
information instead of just presenting information to
humans.
*dlm - done
web vs Web - I think that ``Web'' is supposed to be used instead of
``web''.
*dlm - done
abstract - I suggest
OWL has three increasingly-expressive sublanguages: OWL
Lite, OWL DL, and OWL Full.
*dlm – see posted comment – small modification to this in document.
abstract - OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax
*dlm done
status - I suggest
This overview ... herein are provided to help understand
OWL, but may not ... OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax.
*dlm - done
1. - I suggest
The document describes the OWL Web Ontology Language. OWL
is intended to be used when the information contained in
documents needs to be processed by applications, as opposed
to situations where the content only needs to be presented
to humans. ... is called an ontology.
*dlm - done
1.1 - I suggest
The following ... .
- This overview ... .
- The OWL Guide ... .
- The OWL Reference ... .
- The OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax ... .
*dlm – done with capital o on overview for consistency. Also fixed links on guide.
1.2 - I suggest
... The first level above RDF required for the Semantic Web is an
ontology language what can formally describe the meaning of
terminology used in Web documents.
*Dlm – done
... OWL Use Cases and
Requirement provides ... for a Web Ontology Langauge.
OWL has been designed to meet this need for a Web Ontology Language.
OWL is part of the growing stack of W3C recommendations related to
the Semantic Web.
(don't use a dl here, instead use a ul, as in Section 1.3)
*dlm - done
1.3 - I suggest
OWL Lite ... constraints, OWL Lite ... and OWL Lite provides ...
OWL DL ... want maximum expressiveness while retaining
computational ...
OWL Full ... unlikely that any reasoning software will be able to
support complete reasoning for every feature of OWL Full.
... users require the more-expressive constructs provided by OWL
DL. ... e.g., ... classes or attaching
... Every OWL (...) document ...
*dlm - done
1.4 - I suggest
... features of OWL Lite ... OWL Full. OWL DL and ... .
*dlm - done
2 - I suggest
This section provides ....
*dlm - done
2 - See comment on using owl:
*dlm – if agreed on that we are changing our presentation method, done later
2.1 - I suggest
The list ... is given below.
*dlm - done
2.1 - The RDF Schema Features list is confusing to me. What does
Individual ... have to do with RDF Schema?
*dlm – this was put in since individuals can be included in rdf documents.
This confused someone else too. If no other comments are received, I could move
individual to a separate section – do people think this is better?
2.1 - Something needs to be added on datatypes.
*dlm – not sure what happened here. Datatype should be moved to the same title level
as class intersection. Not done in this pass.
2.2 - I suggest that the HTML source be modified to give much less
spacing
*dlm – not done – fine if this is done in another pass by frank.
2.2 - I suggest
The list ... is
*dlm – done
3 - I suggest
... has more limitations on the use of the features than OWL DL or
OWL Full. In OWL Lite classes ... (cannot be arbitrary
expressions), ... are also only allowed between named classes,
... Similarly, restrictions
*dlm - done
3.1 - The links under SubClassOf and AllValuesFrom are not appropriate.
*dlm – need to get these
3.1 - I suggest
owl:Class: ... owl:Thing ... a superclass of all OWL classes.
*dlm – done on owl classes owl: pending decisions.
3.1 - I suggest
rdfs:subClassOf: ... subclass of another class. ... if an individual is a
Person, then it is also a Mammal.
*dlm - done
3.1 - I suggest
rdf:Property: Properties can be used to state relationships between
individuals or from individuals to data values. ... include
hasChild, .... The first three can be used to relate .... The last
(hasAge) can be used to relate ...
*dlm – done
3.1 - I suggest
rdfs:subPropertyOf: .... that if an individual is related to
another ..., then it is also related to the other by ....
*dlm – done
3.1 - I suggest
rdfs:domain: A domain of a property limits the individuals to
which the property can be applied. If a property relates an
individual to another, and the property has a class as one of its
domains, then the individual must belong to the class.
*dlm - done
3.1 - I suggest a similar change for rdfs:range
*dlm - done
3.2 - I suggest
owl:equivalentClass: Two classes may be stated to be equivalent.
Equivalent classes have the same instances. ...
*dlm - done
3.2 - I suggest a similar change for equivalentProperty
*dlm - done
3.3 - I suggest not using SSN as an inverse functional property example, as
it could be misconstrued as implying that OWL Lite allows inverse
functional on datatype properties.
*dlm – I am not sure that most would encode ssns with integers but I see the
point. Will come up with another example but has not been done yet.
3.4 - I suggest merging 3.4 and 3.5
*dlm – would be ok – not done. If frank redoes the layout and wants to do this that
is fine.
3.4 - I suggest
OWL Lite allows restrictions to be placed on how properties can be
used by instances of a class. The first two kinds of restrictions
limit which values can be used, the last three kinds limit how may
values can be used.
*dlm – done but kept the sections separate.
3.4 and 3.5 - I suggest rewriting all five points to fit with the
introductory wording above.
*dlm – fine to do – if merge rewrite upon merge.
3.7 - I suggest something like:
OWL uses the RDF mechanisms for data values. See the OWL Guide for
more information.
*dlm - done
3.8 - I suggest
OWL Lite supports notions of ontology inclusion and relationships
and attaching information to ontologies. See OWL Reference for
details and OWL Guide for examples.
5. - I suggest
... Web ...
*dlm - done
5. - The acknowledgments should go in an Acknowledgments section.
*dlm - done
Received on Wednesday, 19 March 2003 23:58:12 UTC