LC Responses/ZW2a

From OWL
Revision as of 19:41, 18 February 2009 by IanHorrocks (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
I have collected the following comments from my colleagues in Oracle.

The overall feeling is very positive. Documents are very well written and high quality. OWL 2 is more understandable than OWL 1 to software engineers because the RL/RDF rule set clearly shows a good portion of the OWL 2 semantics.

1. very minor printing issues - OWL 2 Profiles printout (using Firefox) has a weird "span" code in Section 6.3 DataIntersectionOf := 'IntersectionOf' '(' <span class="nontDataRange</span>

2. very minor typo RDF mapping document has a typo in Section 2.2. s/auhtor/author/.

3. Table 2 in Section 4.1 of OWL 2 Profiles is inconsistent with Section 4.2.3. Table 2 omits a few constructs.

5. In the RDF mapping document, is it possible to keep OWL 2 vocabulary a bit smaller by replacing owl:minQualifiedCardinality with the existing owl:minCardinality? Same idea applies to owl:qualifiedCardinality, owl:maxQualifiedCardinality. After all, owl:onClass is there to differentiate the qualified vs. non-qualified case.

6. In Section 2.2 of RDF mapping document, are we missing a translation? It is unclear how the second example in 2.2 is translated into triples. The AnnotationAssertion in Table 1 has three parameters and that example has only two parameters for AnnotationAssertion.

7. For the RL/RDF rule set, it is useful to mention that it is not a minimal set. Some rules are redundant. Also, it will be useful to add rules like ?p1 subPropertyOf ?p2 and ?p2 subPropertyOf ?p1 ==> ?p1 equivalentProperty ?p2 (same thing applies to subClassOf)


PeterPatel-Schneider 19:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

[Response for LC Comment 43 sections 1, 2, 5, and 6:]


Dear Zhe,

Thank you for your message

 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Jan/0083.html

on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts.

Your message contains multiple sections, affecting more than one document, and will thus generate multiple replies. This response is for sections 1, 2, 5, and 6, which affect the mapping from the functional syntax to RDF graphs as well as a simple typographical problem in the Profiles document.

*********************

1. very minor printing issues - OWL 2 Profiles printout (using Firefox) has a weird "span" code in Section 6.3 DataIntersectionOf := 'IntersectionOf' '(' <span class="nontDataRange</span>

*********************

This has been fixed:

The diffs are: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Profiles&diff=17615&oldid=17330


*********************

5. In the RDF mapping document, is it possible to keep OWL 2 vocabulary

  a bit smaller by replacing owl:minQualifiedCardinality with the
  existing owl:minCardinality?  Same idea applies to
  owl:qualifiedCardinality, owl:maxQualifiedCardinality.  After all,
  owl:onClass is there to differentiate the qualified vs.
  non-qualified case.

*********************

The problem here has to do with monotonicity of the RDF semantics. Consider a qualified min cardinality translation, i.e., something like MinCardinality(2 ex:p ex:C), which translates into

_:x rdf:type owl:Restriction _:x owl:minQualifiedCardinality "2"^^xsd:nonNegativeInteger _:x owl:onProperty ex:p _:x owl:onClass ex:C

If this suggestion was made the translation would instead be

_:x rdf:type owl:Restriction _:x owl:minCardinality "2"^^xsd:nonNegativeInteger _:x owl:onProperty ex:p _:x owl:onClass ex:C

However, this contains the three-triple translation of MinCardinality(2 ex:p), and The RDF semantic will pick this up, and augment the meaning of the above four triples with the meaning for MinCardinality(2 ex:p).

For minimum cardinality things are not so bad, because MinCardinality(2 ex:p ex:C) implies MinCardinality(2 ex:p). However for Cardinality and MaxCardinality this is not the case, and an incorrect meaning will be determined.

This kind of problem has been known ever since the original Web Ontology Working Group. The RDF mapping document does not contain all the rationale for the various choices in the mapping, so no change is envisioned in response to this part of your comment.


*********************

2. very minor typo

   RDF mapping document has a typo in Section 2.2. s/auhtor/author/.

6. In Section 2.2 of RDF mapping document, are we missing a translation?

  It is unclear how the second example in 2.2 is translated into
  triples.  The AnnotationAssertion in Table 1 has three parameters and
  that example has only two parameters for AnnotationAssertion.

*********************

The second example in Section 2.2 is

AnnotationAssertion( a:Peter Annotation( Annotation( a:author a:Seth_MacFarlane ) rdfs:label "Peter Griffin" ) )

This is not syntactically correct. The example was not correctly changed from a previous syntax for annotation assertions. The correct example is

AnnotationAssertion( Annotation( a:author a:Seth_MacFarlane ) rdfs:label a:Peter "Peter Griffin" )

namely a singly-annotated annotation assertion.

Thank you for pointing out this error. You also point out the mis-typing of a:author in the example.

The document has been changed to fix these editorial mistakes. The diffs can be found at ..................................


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, Peter F. Patel-Schneider on behalf of the W3C OWL Working Group


To: Zhe Wu <alan.wu@oracle.com>
CC: public-owl-comments@w3.org
Subject: [LC response] To Zhe Wu

Dear Zhe,

Thank you for your comment
     <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Jan/0083.html>
on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts.

This is a response to items 3 and 7 of your comment.

3. Table 2 was completed with missing information; here is the diff:

http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Profiles&diff=18098&oldid=17615

7. The set of rules was extended with the ones for rdfs:subClassOf and rdfs:subPropertyOf that you suggested. Also, the description of the profile was extended with a note that the rule set is redundant. Here is the diff:

http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Profiles&diff=18102&oldid=18099

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