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

Review of RDF Based semantics [2nd]

From: Zhe Wu <alan.wu@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2009 13:58:06 -0400
Message-ID: <49DB942E.3050606@oracle.com>
To: "alan.wu >> \"Wu,Zhe\"" <alan.wu@oracle.com>, OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Hi,

First of all, I'd like to say that it is a great document. It's very 
clearly written and I enjoyed reading it, again!

A few minor comments as follows.
- Section 2.1 talks about generalized RDF triples. I am wondering 
whether it is useful
   to restrict the use of literal values as predicates.

- Section 4.2, I am not exactly clear about 'otherwise IL("s"^^u) is not 
in LV'
  Does it mean that "2.01"^^xsd:integer gets treated like an IRI in OWL 
2 FULL?

- Section 5, in the paragraph starts with Unscoped variables. "x" 
denotes an arbitrary individual in the universe.
  I am wondering if "element" is a better word than "individual" in this 
context (mainly
  to avoid confusion with owl individual)

- In Section 5, does it make sense to add a semantic condition saying 
that literal values
  cannot be used to denote a class? It is hard for me to see the meaning 
of "x rdf:type 3.1415"

- In Section 6, second last paragraph, "IEXT(I(owl:topObjectProperty)) = 
IR x IR"...
  for which there are no corresponding domain and range axiomatic triples.
  Why?

- Section 7 gives a very interesting example on DL entailment is not 
Full entailment and how to
   fix it through syntactic changes. It is very useful without a doubt.

  I am wondering that in addition, can we describe, at a high level, 
what can be meaningfully modeled/expressed
  using OWL 2 FULL but not with OWL 2 DL. After all, users of OWL 2 FULL 
care more about
  using the additional expressivity than aligning inference with DL.
 
- The Proof of the Balancing Lemma. It seems that the algorithm 
described should terminate. Can we
   state it explicitly?

- Table 8.2, if C in IC, then exists z in IR s.t. <z, c> in 
IEXT(I(owl:complementOf))
  Should it be "z in IC" instead? I am asking because it seems to me 
that this "z" can participate
  other comprehension conditions including owl:intersectionOf.


Some editorial changes:
- "to some extend" ==> "to some extent"
- "s sequence of ..." ==> "s is a sequence of ..."
- "with other words" ==> "In other words"
- In the paragraph before Section 3, "how to apply these components in 
OWL 2 ..."
  ==> "how to design OWL 2 ..."
- Second paragraph in Section 3.4, "in order to only refer to ..."
  ==> "To refer to ..."
- Section 5.6, "be applied to some given individual"
 ==> "be applied to a given individual"
- the paragraph before Section 6.2, "and no complex class ... do appear 
there in particular"
==> "and no complex class ... can appear there."
- Resolution of Reason 1 (Annotation): ... has been removed, i.e. there 
is no ...
==> ... has been removed because there is no ...
- Section 8, second paragraph. "a core obstacle ... were RDF encodings ..."
==> "a core obstacle ... was RDF encodings ..."

Cheers,

Zhe
Received on Tuesday, 7 April 2009 17:58:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 7 April 2009 17:58:53 GMT