RE: A proposal for the fragments document

Hi Boris and Bernado!

You wrote:

>Hello,
>
>In the past couple of days Bernardo and I have come up with a 
>proposal document for the OWL fragments story [1] and we thought that
>it would be useful to send it around before tomorrow's 
>discussion. Let us know how you feel about it.
>
>Regards,
>Boris & Bernardo
>
>[1] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Fragments_Proposal

I finally found the time for a first read of the OWL-R Full proposal in

  <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Fragments_Proposal#OWL-R_Full>

I have to say that I very much appreciate that you created this proposal. I plan to go into more depth as soon as I find some time again. For the moment, I have found a few editorial issues which I list below.

Regards,
Michael

============== START: ISSUE LIST =====================

* In 4.3.1, 2nd table, 2nd row, 2nd column: Should be "EXISTS v" instead of "EXISTS u". 

* Perhaps, in 4.3.1. another, simpler example would be better than SomeValue (which is simplified here already, because in OWL-Full there is an additional comprehension principle). Consider perhaps 'owl:inverseOf' or 'owl:equivalentClass'.

* In the list following this table there is a duplicate entry:

    "In the table defining the characteristics of OWL vocabulary 
    related to equivalence, the if-and-only-if conditio in the 
    second column of the table header is changed into only-if."

  Use the first one, the second one contains a typo. :)

* At the end of the same list:

    "The comprehension princ[o]ples are dropped."

* 4.3.2, 2nd par: 

    "This predicate represents RDF tiples"

  Typo in "triples".

* 4.3.2, 2nd par: 

    "furthermore, all implications are implicitly universally quantified." 

  This statement seems redundant, because it is already mentioned at the beginning of the same paragraph.

* 4.3.2, 2nd par:

    "The semantic conditions are split into several tables 
    for easier navigation. These tables are exhaustive: 
    they specify exactly all the semantic conditions that must hold." 
  
  The term "semantic condition" is used in RDF&friends for the model-theoretic semantic specifications. In the RDFS spec the rules are instead called "entailment rules" (see <http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#rules>).  

* Table 2: "IrreflexiveProperty": Redundant triple "T(?x, rdf:type, ?y)"

* Table 2: The syntax for sub property chains is still the old one with the sequence in the LHS of rdfs:subPropertyOf.   

* Table 2 and 3: For the rules with a list as an argument ("intersectionOf", unionOf): The list head should be the RHS, but currently is the LHS. e.g.: Currently: "T(?x1 intersectionOf ?c)" but should be "T(?c intersectionOf ?x1)" ("x1" denotes the list head).

* Table 2 and 3: It is "rdf:subPropertyOf" ("rdf:*"!) but should be "rdfs:subPropertyOf". Ditto (but with "owl:") for "intersectionOf" and "unionOf".

* Perhaps not really editorial: There is no rule for "owl11:ReflexiveProperty", but the other new property characteristics of OWL-1.1 have rules. Was this ommission intended?

============== STOP: ISSUE LIST =====================

--
Dipl.-Inform. Michael Schneider
FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik Karlsruhe
Abtl. Information Process Engineering (IPE)
Tel  : +49-721-9654-726
Fax  : +49-721-9654-727
Email: Michael.Schneider@fzi.de
Web  : http://www.fzi.de/ipe/eng/mitarbeiter.php?id=555

FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik an der Universität Karlsruhe
Haid-und-Neu-Str. 10-14, D-76131 Karlsruhe
Tel.: +49-721-9654-0, Fax: +49-721-9654-959
Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
Az: 14-0563.1 Regierungspräsidium Karlsruhe
Vorstand: Rüdiger Dillmann, Michael Flor, Jivka Ovtcharova, Rudi Studer
Vorsitzender des Kuratoriums: Ministerialdirigent Günther Leßnerkraus