ebXML Registry Profile for Web Ontology Language - a few comments

Here are some comments on ebXML
Registry Profile for Web Ontology Language (OWL), Version 1.1, Draft OASIS
Profile, June 13, 2006:

 

 

 
Generic

 
  
Since
      this profile is related to ebXML Registry specifications and not to particular
      implementations, references to freebXML and
      specific databases should be removed.

  
When
      possible it would be better to reference ebRIM and not relational tables,
      e.g., Line 1325 “comment_”.

  
AssociationTypes
      naming should be consistent and follow ebRIM (UpperCase convention,
      directionability, …), Also, if “HasProperty” is used
      for rdf:Property should other owl:XXXProperty be prefixed in the same way
      -> “Has”?

  
It
      might be beneficial to try to produce a more precise definition of how
      certain ebRIM attributes are constructed, e.g., lid, name, ... Very often,
      e.g., Section 4.8.3 Line 1384 wording says something like “called”,
      but then example doesn’t show name and puts the value in the id.

 

 

 

 
Section
     1.3 – What would be the status of this Profile in case that ebRS
     doesn’t change (support for SQL:1999)?

 

 

 
Section
     2 – It would be beneficial to state why this profile only addresses
     OWL Lite.

 

 

 
Section 4.1.1 - It
     doesn’t say what Classification Scheme these Classification Nodes
     need to be placed under.

 

 

 
Section 4.1.5: Lines [788-792]
     – ebXML Registry doesn’t prescribe what kind of “classes
     / instances” could be stored in the registry; depending on what the
     class / instance model is, both could be stored into the registry. It is
     not clear if this Profile is enforcing, recommending, … storing Individuals
     into a repository.

 

 

 
Section 4.2.2: Lines [803-804]
     – Similar to the previous comment. In fact, it is valid to have extrinsic
     objects without repository items.

 

 

 
Section 4.2.4:

 
  
Line 859 –
      Should “Example owl:allDifferentFrom” be changed to “Example
      owl:allDifferent”?

  
Line 861-
      Suggestion of giving a registry package the name “Collection”
      might not be the best choice as “Collection” might be
      overloaded. It looks like name of the package is not relevant as what
      distinguishes the registry package is its slot “packageType”.

  
Line 862
      - “hasMember” should be changed to “HasMember”.

 

 

 

 
Section 4.6: 

 
  
Line 1260
      – should usage of “both” be avoided, i.e., couldn’t
      intersection be on more then two classes?

  
It seems
      that another (simpler) mapping for “intersectionOf” could avoid
      packaging classes into a registry package by associating classification
      nodes directly.

 

 

 

 
Section 4.8.3: Line –
     why the suffix in “seeAlsoExternalLink” (“ExternalLink”)?

 

 

 
Section 4.9: It seems to be somewhat
     premature to prescribe how XML Schema datatypes are represented in ebXML
     Registry. This should be defined by the ebXML Registry Profile for XML
     Schema.

 

 

 
Section 7.1: Line 2687 –
     Why is the name “label.OWL” and not “OWL”?

 

 

 
Section 7.3 – Subsections
     with Stored Procedures use a mechanism that is not supported by ebXML
     Registry and should be taken out.

 

 

 

Regards,

Nikola