Mike: New versions of the MINDSWAP tools RIC and ConvertToRDF have just been released
DanConn: see ACL2 home at UT
DanConn: "ACL2 is both a programming language in which you can model computer systems and a tool to help you prove properties of those models."
DanConn: "ACL2 is both a programming language in which you can model computer systems and a tool to help you prove properties of those models."
DanConn: W3C Working Draft 4 November 2002
DanConn: by Smith, McGuinness, Volz, Welty
DanConn: hm... characterization of OWL Full looks off; I don't think InverseFunctional Datatype properties are going to be all that rare; you need them to model database keys.
DanConn: default namespace has nothing to do with empty URI references. strike "and empty URI references refer to the current ontology"
DanConn: change "and XML Schema datatype (xsd:) namespaces" to "and XML Schema (xsd:) namespace, from which we use datatypes terms"
DanConn: I prefer <tt> to quotes for stuff like ... we could write the value "&vin;merlot" and
DanConn: "an assertion that what follows is an OWL ontology"; rather, an assertion that this document is an ontology.
DanConn: hmm... maybe that's explained well enough in the following para
DanConn: "<owl:imports> takes a single argument" <- 'argument' is misleading.
DanConn: I'd rather the hello-world example didn't use imports.
DanConn: and if it's going to import the food ontology, surely it needs to import the schemas for RDFS and for OWL itself.
DanConn: eek... "Note that owl:imports may not always succeed." to speak of a statement/property as something that succeeds/fails seems odd.
DanConn: "the familiar ID attribute defined by XML" <- there is no such attribute. XML defines an ID attribute type
DanConn: "The fundamental taxonomic constructor for classes is subclassOf." cite RDFS spec, RDF primer.
DanConn: "A label is like a comment and contributes nothing to the logical interpretation" er... that's too strong... perhaps "does not constrain its membership in any way"... but even that could be too strong.
DanConn: "The wine ontology as it currently exists would require the ability to treat classes as instances" <- suggests OWL can't do this. It can.
DanConn: "we don't have the ability to represent a subset of a given wine individual." <- yes, we do.
DanConn: "OWL Full allows the use of classes as instances and OWL DL does not." <- should say more about why not; i.e. tractable reasoning
DanConn: "The wine ontology is designed to work in OWL DL" <- we should show both: how to do it straightforwardly in OWL Full, then how to hobble it to fit into DL reasoners
DanConn: "Simple Properties " <- stopped reading here for now.
jhendler: Owl guide slashdotted (well sort of) at http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/11/10/0334248&mode=thread&tid=95
DanConn: by Smith, McGuinness, Volz, Welty
DanConn: hm... characterization of OWL Full looks off; I don't think InverseFunctional Datatype properties are going to be all that rare; you need them to model database keys.
DanConn: default namespace has nothing to do with empty URI references. strike "and empty URI references refer to the current ontology"
DanConn: change "and XML Schema datatype (xsd:) namespaces" to "and XML Schema (xsd:) namespace, from which we use datatypes terms"
DanConn: I prefer <tt> to quotes for stuff like ... we could write the value "&vin;merlot" and
DanConn: "an assertion that what follows is an OWL ontology"; rather, an assertion that this document is an ontology.
DanConn: hmm... maybe that's explained well enough in the following para
DanConn: "<owl:imports> takes a single argument" <- 'argument' is misleading.
DanConn: I'd rather the hello-world example didn't use imports.
DanConn: and if it's going to import the food ontology, surely it needs to import the schemas for RDFS and for OWL itself.
DanConn: eek... "Note that owl:imports may not always succeed." to speak of a statement/property as something that succeeds/fails seems odd.
DanConn: "the familiar ID attribute defined by XML" <- there is no such attribute. XML defines an ID attribute type
DanConn: "The fundamental taxonomic constructor for classes is subclassOf." cite RDFS spec, RDF primer.
DanConn: "A label is like a comment and contributes nothing to the logical interpretation" er... that's too strong... perhaps "does not constrain its membership in any way"... but even that could be too strong.
DanConn: "The wine ontology as it currently exists would require the ability to treat classes as instances" <- suggests OWL can't do this. It can.
DanConn: "we don't have the ability to represent a subset of a given wine individual." <- yes, we do.
DanConn: "OWL Full allows the use of classes as instances and OWL DL does not." <- should say more about why not; i.e. tractable reasoning
DanConn: "The wine ontology is designed to work in OWL DL" <- we should show both: how to do it straightforwardly in OWL Full, then how to hobble it to fit into DL reasoners
DanConn: "Simple Properties " <- stopped reading here for now.
jhendler: Owl guide slashdotted (well sort of) at http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/11/10/0334248&mode=thread&tid=95