W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > April 2009

Re: Part I of Response to Peter F. Patel-Schneider

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 16:47:21 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20090402.164721.88132820.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: schneid@fzi.de
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
From: "Michael Schneider" <schneid@fzi.de>
Subject: Part I of Response to Peter F. Patel-Schneider [RE: review of RDF-Based Semantics]
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 22:15:41 +0200

> Hi Peter!
> Many thanks for your review. In particular, thank you for the
> improvements in the Wiki (the other mail you sent).
> There is one comment left that I did not yet find the time to answer,
> which is the request for a technical change concerning Keys. So you will
> receive another mail on this particular topic within the next few days.
> For all other points, see my answers below.
> Best regards,
> Michael
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org]
>>On Behalf Of Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>>Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 10:59 PM
>>To: public-owl-wg@w3.org
>>Subject: review of RDF-Based Semantics
>>General comments:
>>The document is very close to being acceptable for LC.
> Sounds good, thank you!
>>The remaining uses of "OWL 2 Full" can stay.
> Ok.
>>Terminology change:
>>"IRI reference" -> "absolute IRI"
> The (consistent) use of "IRI reference" in the document was deliberate,
> because the term "URI reference" is (also consistently) used in the
> original RDF Semantics document. In general, I wanted to avoid
> terminological deviation from the RDF Semantics. I also want to note
> that the term "IRI reference" is used in the IRI specification itself
> (RFC 3987).
> Nevertheless, I would agree to change the term, if "IRI reference" would
> not be in use in the rest of the OWL 2 document suite. However, I can
> see that this term is frequently used in at least the Structural
> Specification and in the RDF Mapping.
> As a consequence, I would prefer not to change the current use of "IRI
> reference".

This is not a request for a wording change just for stylistic reasons.
My belief is that IRI reference is technically incorrect, as it includes
relative IRIs.  SS&FS has already made this change.  RDF uses URI
reference to mean absolute URI with optional fragment.

>>Wording changes:

All OK.

>>Technical Changes:
>>1/ Align keys with treatment in direct semantics:
>>   5.2:
>>    owl:NamedIndividual	\in IC 	\subseteq IR
>>  5.2:
>>    Remove the "Informative Note".
>>  5.14:
>> Add x,y \in NamedIndividual after the "if" in the RHS of Table 5.14
> !!! NOT YET TREATED !!! 
> (more time please)
>>2/ Still thinking about n-ary datatypes.

Received on Thursday, 2 April 2009 20:45:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:11 UTC