LC Responses/SS1b

From OWL
Jump to: navigation, search
Structural Specification and Functional-Style Syntax


* Section 1, "introduction", especially like the concept of the ontology modularization - 

it will facilitate the ontology reuse and it is an issue that I'm facing today. I hope that in the future, we can have more support in this area.

  • Section 2.3, "Alternatively, an IRI it can be abbreviated as a CURIE [CURIE]." - The "it"

here seems redundant.

  • Section 3.4 "Imports" - after the import, will the new ontology own the imported entities

from the imported ontologies?

  • Section 3.5 "Ontology Annotations" - good to have, very useful meta data for an ontology
  • Section 4.1"Numbers". It is interesting to see the differences between equality and identity -

other than "-0" and "+0", are there any other examples that show two numbers are equal, yet not identical? Where should we pay more attention to the difference?

  • Section 4.3 "Boolean values". Can we also have "Yes" and "No" as the lexical values? "Yes"

and "No" are frequently used and are very natural answer to a lot of questions

  • Section 5.9 "Metamodeling" - pretty good explanation
  • Section 9 "Axims" - really like it - it seems that it extends previous version and becomes

a lot more descriptive - definitely very helpful in modeling and reasoning

Mapping to RDF Graphs [2]

It is great that W3C defines the mapping from OWL 2 to RDF graphs - it is very helpful when we move the ontologies around. I didn't get to all the details - it seems more for the people who are building semantic tools. As a data modeler, I just want to ensure that the transformation does not change the logical meaning of the ontologies, which is clearly stated in the introduction. Thanks for stating this clearly at the beginning.

PeterPatel-Schneider 02:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC) Combined with other part of comment.