W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > May 2008

Re: review of RIF-RDF-OWL (expert level)

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 06 May 2008 18:40:10 +0100
Message-ID: <482097FA.9030006@hpl.hp.com>
To: "Web Ontology Language ((OWL)) Working Group WG" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>



Some of my draft comments which were made about bits of the documents I 
didn't understand are as follows, I have not included any of these in 
the draft WG comments.

2) Scope of review

I reviewed the document excluding the Appendices.

I have not read the other RIF documents, so am not competent
to review the interaction between this document and RIF.

I am not competent to review a few of the technical sections
to do with DL: specifically 3.1.1 and 3.2.2.1, (and more generally
3.2.2) were overly challenging for me, and this should not be
seen as a criticism of those sections.


8) end of para, under table 1, question

Does the sentence

[[
This means that whenever a triple s p o is satisfied, the corresponding
RIF frame formula s'[p' -> o'] is satisfied, and vice versa.
]]

adequately take account of CWA and OWA divergences between the
frameworks?

19) 3.1, para2, question

[[
Specifically, the only terms allowed in class and property positions in
frame formulas are constant symbols.
]]

does this interact OK with the syntactic restrictions that define OWL DL?
I am wondering whether there are possible RIF/OWL DL combinations that
would be unfortunate for OWL DL implementors ...

I may simply not have understood this text enough. If you are happy that
the answer to my question is that I have misunderstood that's OK.

20) 3.2.2.1 first definition, question

I did not understand this section, not being the target audience.
However, I wondered whether "if a!=IC(rdf:type) then b in Dind" was what
was intended. It didn't quite feel right, but then I am picking at
something without having understood properly.

"yes - it is right" would be the ideal response.
Received on Tuesday, 6 May 2008 17:41:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 6 May 2008 17:41:00 GMT