| Question asked
|
# Authors quote numbers from a reference …
# Authors quote numbers from a reference to show that the number of OWL ontologies is 6 times lesser than RDFS ontologies. I bet there are very few OWL ontologies that use cardinality restrictions. Inspite of these statistics I am tempted to ask- wouldn't it be relevant to discuss cardinality restrictions in the context of the work in this paper. Cardinality restrictions (special case- functional properties) on a property, relate a class (RESTRICTION) to the range of the property. In addition they restrict the out-degree (total-degree) which is very relevant here. Do you think the same, and if possible how do you think cardinality restrictions can be accounted for?
# This probably should have come before the previous question, but since first question led me to think of this one, i keep it second. Many properties are intended to take multiple values. For example a property that relates team to its members, say hasMember. If authors would have considered instance data this would have been accounted for. Therefore it may not be enough to consider a single edge <team, hasMember, players> for total-degree estimations. Do you also see that as a problem? How do you think we can resolve this issue, if there is one?
# This question is also in context of those minority ontologies in OWL. I could understand that in the case of allValuesFrom, say C = AllValuesFrom(P,A), we can have an edge <C, P, A>. However, it's not clear from the paper that how the authors take into account someValuesFrom feature of OWL.
# What about property hierarchy? It's an RDFS feature. My personal feeling is that its inclusion shouldn't affect the VR and CCDF values for total-degrees (do you think so?). Still.. do you think property hierarchies should have been discussed (or considered) by the authors? discussed (or considered) by the authors?
|
