Re: Quick comments on the QRG

Peter.

Thanks again for the through review. I updated QRG

The diff is

http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Quick_Reference_Guide&diff=22195&oldid=22157

This version is

More goes inline

Jie

On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider
<pfps@research.bell-labs.com> wrote:
> If you are going to keep the pointers to NF&R, then a simple ? is all
> that is needed. �The bracketing parentheses do not add anything (and
> only detract).
>
> Organization:
> �I disagree with putting class/... axioms in the ... sections but not
> �enough to agitate for a reorganization.
>
> Nomenclature:
> �If you are going to use short forms, you should use "standard" ones,
> �i.e., (...) instead of [...] (even though [] is nicer).
>
It has been changed

>
> Semantics:
> �If you have "semantics" for some axioms, you should have them for
> �all. �If you can't have them for all, you shouldn't have any. �If you
> �have them for all, then you should get the semantics at least close to
> �correct.
>
All semantics are out now

> Links:
> �The links to the Primer are broken due to the ongoing rewrite of the
> �Primer.
>
Fixed

> Abstract (2nd paragraph):
> �Much better would be:
> � �This document provides a quick reference guide to the OWL 2 language.
>
Done

> S1
> �The initial bit of S1 should be something like:
> � �The standard ... in OWL 2 are
>
Done

> S2
> �The title should be something like:
> � �OWL 2 Constructs
>
> �It is not necessary to repeat the section titles.
>
Removed repetition

> S2.1.1
> �Should be titled something like:
> � �Boolean Connectives and Enumeration
>
Now is Boolean Connectives and Enumeration of Individuals

> S2.1.2
> �It is not necessary to have
> � Every owl:Restriction is an owl:Class.
> �as this comes from the structure of the document.
>
That's true, but making it explicit may help beginners.

> �A better arrangement for the cardinalities would be to have two lines
> �in the second column, the first without the C and the second with.
> �This would allow the removal of the "Cardinality Restrictions" box.
>
Done

> �if C presents -> if C is present
>
> �It would be better to have the if ... lines left-justified and the
> �triples below them indented a bit.
>
changed to without C /with C

> S2.1.3
> �Many of the points for S2.1.2 apply here as well.
>
> S2.1.4
> �See "Organization" note.
>
If you prefer to have Class Axioms and Property Axioms to be separate
sections, I'm happy to do so.

> S2.2
> �The introductory paragraph can just be replaced with
> � �Built-in datatypes are unary data ranges.
>
Changed to "Built-in datatypes are unary data ranges. OWL 2 does not
provide direct support for n-ary data ranges but provides syntactical
hooks for applications to add them. "

> �You need to say that the D in DatatypeRestriction is a built-in
> �datatype, arbitrary data ranges are not allowed.
>
added

> �The table has some glitches. �It would probably be better to not have
> �the f/v box by itself in a column. �(I'm not sure where it would be
> �best to put it - perhaps in the left-hand column.)
>
they are moved to the middle column as comments.

> S2.3.1
> �The owl:ObjectProperty does not add anything here.
>
Changed to

Object Properties are instances of owl:ObjectProperty
Datatype Properties are instances of owl:DatatypeProperty

I believe these lines will give readers better view on the connection
between functional syntax and RDF syntax. Thus I prefer to keep them.

> �The table has some boxing glitches.
>
> �Better than = owl:Thing x owl:Thing is "Universal relation"
> �Better than "empty binary relation" is "Empty relation"
> �Even better would be to just remove the column.
>
Removed

> S2.3.2
> �There is no "," in the FS for DisjointObjectProperties. �Also occurs
> �elsewhere.
>
Fixed for DisjointObjectProperties, and SameIndividual

> S2.4
> �Many of the points for S2.3 apply here as well.
>
> S2.5
> �The j= doesn't need to be on a separate line.
>
Fixed

> S2.6
> �This should not have the same status as, e.g., Declarations.
>
I'm not clear about this suggestion. could you be more specific?

> S2.8 - S2.9
> �This is not a good way of presenting annotations. �The problem is how
> �to present annotations in the organization of the QRG. �The following
> �appears to be the best compromise (but see "Organization" above).
>

> �S2.8 Annotations
>
> �S2.8.1 Annotations of Objects
>
> �AnnotationAssertion( AP AS AV )
> � �AP AS AV
>
Done

> �S2.8.2 Annotations of Axioms
>
> �AXIOM(Annotation(AP AV) ....)
> � �s p o .
> � �x rdf:type owl:Axiom .
> � �x owl:subject s .
> � �x owl:predicate p .
> � �x owl:object o.
> � �x AP AV .
> � � �If AXIOM(...) becomes s p o .
>
> �AXIOM(Annotation(AP AV) ....)
> � �x ....
> � �x AP AV .
> � � � If AXIOM(...) becomes x ....
>
Done. With this change, Reification section becomes redundant thus I delete it.

> �S2.8.3 AnnotationProperties
>
> �....
>
> �S2.8.4 Annotation Axioms
>
> �.... (but without the "or" section)
>
Done. I moved AnnotationAssertion out from this section. Was your
suggestion keeping the "s AP v." form still in this section?

>
> S2.10
> �As this is deprecated, it doesn't belong in this document.
>
Listing deprecated vocabulary and their replacement with will give
people who is familiar with OWL 1 better understanding on the
vocabulary.


> S2.11
>
> �I suggest instead
>
> �S2.11 Annotations of Ontologies
>
> � �Ontology( ON [ VN ] Import(IN) ... Annotation(AP AV) ... ... )
> � � ON rdf:type owl:Ontology .
> � � [ ON owl:versionInfo VN . ]
> � � ON owl:imports IN .
> � � ...
> � � ON AP AV .
> � � ...
> � � ...
>
> � � (Also for unnamed ontologies.)
>
Done

> S4.1
> �owl:realPlus is gone
> �owl:rational is in OWL 2
Updated

> �need to discuss disjointness
I wonder readers should get into the details of DT semantics. As we
will talk about semantics in general, we may skip mentioning this too.

> �many of the time DTs listed are not in OWL 2
>
I updated with the DTs currently listed in syntax
>
> peter
>
>



-- 
Jie Bao
http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~baojie

Facebook,Twitter,Skype,Msn,LinkedIn - check url above

Received on Wednesday, 15 April 2009 20:39:05 UTC