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

RE: Review: XML Serialization

From: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 15:34:44 +0100
To: "'Achille Fokoue'" <achille@us.ibm.com>
Cc: <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <004501c91289$33c2e540$2b12a8c0@wolf>
Hello,

 

Regarding KeyFor, I see that it appears as an axiom; however, it appears as an axiom in the XML Schema, and it does so in exactly
the same order. So am I to assume that this comment does not need addressing? Please let me know if this is not the case.

 

Regards,

 

            Boris

 

  _____  

From: Achille Fokoue [mailto:achille@us.ibm.com] 
Sent: 09 September 2008 15:02
To: Boris Motik
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
Subject: RE: Review: XML Serialization

 


Hi Boris, 

Thanks for quickly taking into account my  comments! 

Regarding 'KeyFor', after double-checking, here is the definition of 'Axiom' found in section 9 of the syntax spec (at least the
version available on the WG wiki at 9:30 am ET today) : 
Axiom := Declaration | ClassAxiom | ObjectPropertyAxiom | DataPropertyAxiom | *KeyFor* | Assertion | EntityAnnotation |
AnonymousIndividualAnnotation. 'KeyFor' appears as an Axiom. It also appears as such in the UML diagram located at the beginning of
section 9.4 . 

On a different note, I completely agree with you that facets should not be as tightly constrained as they were in the previous
version of the XML Schema. 

Best regards, 
Achille. 

  




"Boris Motik" <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk> 

09/08/2008 07:54 PM 


To

Achille Fokoue/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, <public-owl-wg@w3.org> 


cc

 


Subject

RE: Review: XML Serialization

 


 

 




Hello Achille, 
  
Thanks for your review! I've addressed your comments as follows: 
  
- I've added declarations for the missing entities to the example. 
  
- I've changed the import statement to have the form <ox:Import>http://.</ox:Import>. 
  
- I've updated the definition of InverseObjectProperty as you've suggested. 
  
- The comment about totalDigits and fractionDigits is actually an error in the Syntax document: no datatype in the OWL 2 datatype
map supports these facets. On second thought, it might be bad anyway to restrict either of the syntaxes to a particular set of
facets: OWL 2 implementations are allowed to define their own facets. Therefore, the set of supported facets is actually defined by
the datatype map and should not be checked at the syntax level. Consequently, I've updated both the Syntax document and the XML
Syntax not to check the facets. 
  
- I've changed FacetLiteralPair to FacetRestriction as you've suggested. 
  
- I didn't understand your comment about KeyFor: in Section 9 of the Syntax document, KeyFor is listed before the assertions (in the
grammar, the diagrams, and the actual sections of the document). This is exactly where KeyFor is listed in XML Syntax as well. 
  
- I've added InverseObjectProperties to the list. 
  
Thanks again for this detailed review: I guess after so much time looking at it I just can't spot the bugs any more. 
  
Regards, 
  
            Boris 
  

 

  _____  


From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Achille Fokoue
Sent: 08 September 2008 23:27
To: public-owl-wg@w3.org
Subject: Review: XML Serialization 
  

Hi, 

I have completed the review of the XML Serialization spec.  My comments are in [1].  Note that most comments are in the XML Schema
document itself. 

Best regards, 
Achille. 

[1]  http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/XML_Serialization 
Received on Tuesday, 9 September 2008 14:36:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:06 UTC