LC Responses/IH1

From OWL
Revision as of 09:19, 13 March 2009 by Bmotik2 (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
CC: public-owl-comments@w3.org
Subject: [LC response] To Ivan Herman

Dear Ivan,

Thank you for your comment
     <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Jan/0022.html>
on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts.

The WG agreed that further clarification and examples would be useful. Consequently, Section 11.2 has been slightly reworked. Various restrictions have now been structured according to their function, the existing examples have been rewritten, and two additional examples along the lines of what you suggested have been added. These changes are captured by the following diff:

http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Syntax&diff=19622&oldid=19589

Thanks again for your comment!

Please acknowledge receipt of this email to <mailto:public-owl-comments@w3.org> (replying to this email should suffice). In your acknowledgment please let us know whether or not you are satisfied with the working group's response to your comment.

Regards,
Boris Motik
on behalf of the W3C OWL Working Group



CUT AND PASTE THE BODY OF THE MESSAGE (I.E. FROM "Dear" TO "Group") INTO THE BODY OF AN EMAIL MESSAGE. SET THE To:, CC:, AND Subject: LINES ACCORDINGLY.

PLEASE TRY TO REPLY IN A WAY THAT WILL ALLOW THREADING TO WORK APPROPRIATELY, I.E., SO THAT YOUR REPLY CONTINUES THE THREAD STARTED BY THE ORIGINAL COMMENT EMAIL


this is not a direct comment in the sense of a spelling error, something

a little bit more. Ie, this might require a little bit more discussions on the list (or at least the WG approval...)

I look at 11.1 and 11.2. And, obviously, this is _very_ difficult to follow for somebody who has not been in the area of DL. The set of examples are therefore very useful; it gives a good 'vague' idea for laypeople and let the details to experts.

However... just trying to see how things would become a bit more palatable.

  • 11.1: obviously, the issue of simple vs composite become a bit more convoluted with the inverse. The current example is clear, I wonder whether an extra example involving an inverse would not be helpful.
  • 11.2 (1) example (referring to points #1, #2, #3) is fairly clear.
  • 11.2 (2) and (3) are both for point #4. What I would, however, miss is a 'positive' example that is valid (not only the version in (3)), and also how that would/could be translated into the partial order defined in #4. This 'there exist a partial order' is really frightening for a non mathematician.
  • In some ways, my comment is the same for the last two examples. It would be good to have an example that _violates_ the last item in the restrictions, and why that happens. It would again help the reader...

Just my 2 pence...